Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the "Ask the EEOC Question and Answer Session" conference call. At this time, all participants are on a listen-only mode. Later we will conduct a question and answer session and further instructions will follow at that time. If anyone should require assistance, please press star then zero on your touch tone telephone. As a reminder this conference is being recorded. I would hand the call over to Robin Jones, please go ahead.
Thank you, Robin, and welcome to everyone who is listening or participating today and as Robin indicated, really, this is your session more than it is our session or my session. I guess you all get to do some of the work today because it is about your questions. When we were thinking about what to do today, given that EEOC has not recently put out any major documents, major interpretations of the employment provisions of the ADA recently, that we thought it would maybe be a good time to catch up with what is on your mind, as Robin said, and hear from you. So I hope you have come with questions today, and if you have heard me speak before, you know that I almost can never just say yes or no to answer a question, that they are always teaching vehicles and I get to learn on behalf of the my colleagues what is on your mind, what kinds of pressing issues, and we use that to determine what kinds of future guidances we maybe should be thinking about putting out there that you bring to our attention, where there are gaps in what people understand or further clarification is needed. So you''re really helping the EEOC, I hope, as wells I hope I can help you today. The one thing we''ve been waiting for something like this to come down, is that since the enactment of the ADA amendments act, the ADAAA, which everyone knows went into in effect in 2009 and expanded the definition of disability, we certainly had court cases that have been coming down now, and, as expected, most of those court cases have, as congress intended, found a broader definition of disability, but those have been overwhelmingly district courts issuing decisions and we''ve been waiting to have an appellate court, the level below the Supreme Court, weigh in on their interpretation ADA Amendments Act. As it happened, timing is everything, and yesterday, the Seventh Circuit, which is where Robin is, the seventh circuit which encompasses Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana I may be leaving one out, but those are the major ones -- did issue a decision yesterday, and we are very pleased here with the EEOC with it, I''m sure I''m going to mispronounce the plaintiff''s name, "Gogos versus AMS Mechanical Systems," and the sole focus of yesterday''s decision was the ADA Amendments Act and whether the plaintiff''s medical conditions rose to the level of being a disability. The district court had said no, they did not, dismissed it on that basis. Basically it involves a form of hypertension that has had some impact on vision for this individual. And what the Seventh Circuit did, and really, only a couple of pages, pretty straightforward decision, is they took various provisions of the ADA Amendments Act and they put it all together and said, yes, this person, contrary to what the district court had ruled, can make out a case that he has a disability. And among the Amendments Acts provisions that the Seventh Circuit focused on, first of all, they focused on the fact that his condition is episodic, so they looked at provision that the Amendments Act that said conditions that is episodic can be covered as long as when they are active. They substantially limit a major life activity, and the Seventh Circuit noted that episodic conditions don''t have to be active for that long a period of time. It can be a pretty brief period when they''re active. Nonetheless, that can trigger coverage under the ADA. They looked at two different major life activities. One was seeing. As I mentioned, this individual did have some vision problems. But they also looked at the major bodily function of the circulatory system. And they really didn''t go into any great commentary, but again, what I think is notable is that the Seventh Circuit sort of accepted, you know, circulatory system, clearly, under the EEOC regulations. That''s a major life activity. The court also looked at mitigating measures, noting that this individual took medication, as do many people who have hypertension, high blood pressure, and so they reviewed that we have to ignore, the court said, any positive effects from the medication, so if you take that into account, that was like another reason to say, yes, this is a disability. And perhaps, to my mind, most significantly, the court said, the fact that the employer may have made an argument that maybe these conditions really weren''t going to last all that long, and the court said that, in its reading of the ADA Amendments Act, the EEOC''s regulation of the act, they said, it doesn''t have to last a long period of time and they quote from the appendix to the EEOC regulations, which state that the language we find in the "regarded as" definition of the disability, where you can''t fall into the "regarded as" if the condition in issues is transitory and minor, transitory meaning six months or less, the court rejected the employer''s argument that that apply to determining coverage under the first definition as to whether or not someone is substantially limited. We don''t look at that six months and the minor language. That doesn''t apply here. And they said, in fact, as the appendix to the regulations make clear, it might last less than six months and still be considered a disability. And I think that''s a point people raise over and over again. How long does something have to last? And still I hear, as I travel around the country, people say, doesn''t it have to last at least six months or more, and the Seventh Circuit made very clear, echoing the EEOC, no, that that is not a requirement to be substantially impairment. That for me was the most significant part of the decision. But I do call it to people''s attention. It really is one of the very first appellate court decisions, interpreting the Amendments Act, doing exactly what congress wanted to see happen here. So if you follow these things, this is a decision that you''ll want to note and does have a lot of influence. People do look towards the Seventh Circuit. It is considered an authoritative circuit, so really something they came out this way. That''s my introduction. Robin, at this point I would like to throw it open to the audience, and whether it''s with the issues or specifically with the EEOC and what''s going on here, I''m happy to do my best to provide answers.
Well, great, Sharon, for that, and you are right, timing is everything, and it''s great to be able to hear about that case and the implications of that case, especially, as you said, being a circuit level case. So Stephanie, if you could give some instructions to our participants via the telephone that would be great.
Well, great, Sharon, for that, and you are right, timing is everything, and it''s great to be able to hear about that case and the implications of that case, especially, as you said, being a circuit level case. So Stephanie, if you could give some instructions to our participants via the telephone that would be great.
Thank you, Robin, and welcome to everyone who is listening or participating today and as Robin indicated, really, this is your session more than it is our session or my session. I guess you all get to do some of the work today because it is about your questions. When we were thinking about what to do today, given that EEOC has not recently put out any major documents, major interpretations of the employment provisions of the ADA recently, that we thought it would maybe be a good time to catch up with what is on your mind, as Robin said, and hear from you. So I hope you have come with questions today, and if you have heard me speak before, you know that I almost can never just say yes or no to answer a question, that they are always teaching vehicles and I get to learn on behalf of the my colleagues what is on your mind, what kinds of pressing issues, and we use that to determine what kinds of future guidances we maybe should be thinking about putting out there that you bring to our attention, where there are gaps in what people understand or further clarification is needed. So you''re really helping the EEOC, I hope, as wells I hope I can help you today. The one thing we''ve been waiting for something like this to come down, is that since the enactment of the ADA amendments act, the ADAAA, which everyone knows went into in effect in 2009 and expanded the definition of disability, we certainly had court cases that have been coming down now, and, as expected, most of those court cases have, as congress intended, found a broader definition of disability, but those have been overwhelmingly district courts issuing decisions and we''ve been waiting to have an appellate court, the level below the Supreme Court, weigh in on their interpretation ADA Amendments Act. As it happened, timing is everything, and yesterday, the Seventh Circuit, which is where Robin is, the seventh circuit which encompasses Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana I may be leaving one out, but those are the major ones -- did issue a decision yesterday, and we are very pleased here with the EEOC with it, I''m sure I''m going to mispronounce the plaintiff''s name, "Gogos versus AMS Mechanical Systems," and the sole focus of yesterday''s decision was the ADA Amendments Act and whether the plaintiff''s medical conditions rose to the level of being a disability. The district court had said no, they did not, dismissed it on that basis. Basically it involves a form of hypertension that has had some impact on vision for this individual. And what the Seventh Circuit did, and really, only a couple of pages, pretty straightforward decision, is they took various provisions of the ADA Amendments Act and they put it all together and said, yes, this person, contrary to what the district court had ruled, can make out a case that he has a disability. And among the Amendments Acts provisions that the Seventh Circuit focused on, first of all, they focused on the fact that his condition is episodic, so they looked at provision that the Amendments Act that said conditions that is episodic can be covered as long as when they are active. They substantially limit a major life activity, and the Seventh Circuit noted that episodic conditions don''t have to be active for that long a period of time. It can be a pretty brief period when they''re active. Nonetheless, that can trigger coverage under the ADA. They looked at two different major life activities. One was seeing. As I mentioned, this individual did have some vision problems. But they also looked at the major bodily function of the circulatory system. And they really didn''t go into any great commentary, but again, what I think is notable is that the Seventh Circuit sort of accepted, you know, circulatory system, clearly, under the EEOC regulations. That''s a major life activity. The court also looked at mitigating measures, noting that this individual took medication, as do many people who have hypertension, high blood pressure, and so they reviewed that we have to ignore, the court said, any positive effects from the medication, so if you take that into account, that was like another reason to say, yes, this is a disability. And perhaps, to my mind, most significantly, the court said, the fact that the employer may have made an argument that maybe these conditions really weren''t going to last all that long, and the court said that, in its reading of the ADA Amendments Act, the EEOC''s regulation of the act, they said, it doesn''t have to last a long period of time and they quote from the appendix to the EEOC regulations, which state that the language we find in the "regarded as" definition of the disability, where you can''t fall into the "regarded as" if the condition in issues is transitory and minor, transitory meaning six months or less, the court rejected the employer''s argument that that apply to determining coverage under the first definition as to whether or not someone is substantially limited. We don''t look at that six months and the minor language. That doesn''t apply here. And they said, in fact, as the appendix to the regulations make clear, it might last less than six months and still be considered a disability. And I think that''s a point people raise over and over again. How long does something have to last? And still I hear, as I travel around the country, people say, doesn''t it have to last at least six months or more, and the Seventh Circuit made very clear, echoing the EEOC, no, that that is not a requirement to be substantially impairment. That for me was the most significant part of the decision. But I do call it to people''s attention. It really is one of the very first appellate court decisions, interpreting the Amendments Act, doing exactly what congress wanted to see happen here. So if you follow these things, this is a decision that you''ll want to note and does have a lot of influence. People do look towards the Seventh Circuit. It is considered an authoritative circuit, so really something they came out this way. That''s my introduction. Robin, at this point I would like to throw it open to the audience, and whether it''s with the issues or specifically with the EEOC and what''s going on here, I''m happy to do my best to provide answers.
Well, great, Sharon, for that, and you are right, timing is everything, and it''s great to be able to hear about that case and the implications of that case, especially, as you said, being a circuit level case. So Stephanie, if you could give some instructions to our participants via the telephone that would be great.
Ladies and gentlemen, to ask a question, please press star, then one, on your touch tone telephone. If your question has been answered and you wish to remove yourself from the queue, press the pound key.
Great and while for people to have questions, I have some that have been submitted electronically, so we''ll start there. We have a question which is, when might we expect a long-awaited guidance on leave as a reasonable accommodation to come out from the EEOC?
I wish I could give you a definitive answer to that question, and it''s not the first time we''ve heard this question. I know that the commissioners -- gosh, I lose track of time, but we''re probably going back a couple of years now, they held a well-publicized meeting on the question of leave as a form of reasonable accommodation, and they indicated in that meeting they wanted to issue guidance, and I''m well aware to date that we do not have it. The best I can say is that don''t be looking for anything imminently, meaning before the end of this year or January. We''re not going to have anything coming out that soon. I think that is still on the commissioners'' to-do list. They know there are a lot of concerns and issues around leave as a reasonable accommodation, that employers and employees seeking more information on all kinds of leave issues, on people who need what might be called intermittent leave, that they need a few days here, a few days there, sometimes it''s on a regular basis or it can be predicted. Other times, depending on the disability, it may be unpredictable. Just the only predictability is that there will be that kind of leave. Then there are people who need a huge block of time to take off. Obviously, that''s a little more definitive in terms of the period, but sometimes that can be extended and what starts out as perhaps three, four, five months and then there''s a request for an extension of leave, and the issues that employees and employers have, how much leave can people take? How many extensions might people be eligible for? So the commission is continuing to look into these issues to see if it can put something together. And I know that''s an unsatisfactory answer, but unfortunately, it is the best that I can give at this time. Certainly if there are questions today dealing with leave issues, I''m more than happy to try to answer them. The thing that I will say is that what I do, what the rest of the staff here in the ADA division continue to emphasize, to employers and employees, no matter what the leave situation is, the importance of the interactive process -- the communication between employee and employer and really, employers need to be clear about why leave is need, how much leave is needed. That if we''re talking about a block of time, that employers should, at the end of that period approaches, be checking in, if they haven''t alright. Is everything on schedule for somebody to come back? And if not, if things have changed, then there needs to be a dialogue about that, and potentially, employees will need to be providing additional medical documentation about the extension. On the other side, employees don''t wait for the call from the employers. We strongly encourage employees, while you''re on leave, no matter what kind, stay in touch with the employer. Bring them up to date with the developments, what is going on, why things have changed from what was initially thought. Again, medical science is not always going to lend itself to absolute predictability. Things can change for many reasons. So what was once thought of, as, you know, someone will be out for four months, why they''re saying they''re going to have an additional two months of leave. But the sooner that an employer and employee can talk about these issues, the employers are entitled to get the information to understand where things are, and again, they should both be attempting to keep those lines of communication open and to have a free transfer of very relevant information, that these things can go far more smoothly than, employers shouldn''t wait before the day before, before communication is made, and the sooner contact is made, the better things might go. I will leave things here and see if there are people this afternoon that have specific questions on leave.
Great. Thank you. So I have a question then we''ll go back to the phones. So the questions is saying that -- asking me, basically, why are lawyers, and this person is saying, in a certain region, and I believe this person is from the Ohio area, failing to pursue violations of EEOC laws for people who are unemployed? This person is saying specifically, they''re asked by an attorney, what do you project your income loss to be because of unemployment, and I don''t have any projected loss because I don''t have a job. I can''t get hired because of my disability. We hear this on occasion, this continued issue of attorneys being leery to take ADA cases, and some of it is obviously pre -- some of those things that happened pre-ADA Amendments Act, but do you see any trends changing in the increased number of cases being taken or any thoughts on that issue, Sharon?
In terms of lawyers who may be reluctant to take a case on behalf of somebody with a disability, first of all, it can be difficult at times from working here in Washington, D.C. to really have a sense nationwide about what''s happening. It just is not always easy to tell. So I certainly don''t want to hold myself out as somebody who can offer definitive or special insight into the question that has been raised here. Certainly, as you indicated, Robin, this concern, complaint, is not new. And certainly prior to the ADA Amendments Act what we thought we understood from a lot of plaintiffs'' attorneys, the attorneys who would represent someone with a disability, given that it was so difficult to prove disability in a court of law, that that was a big reason that many lawyers were reluctant to take such cases, and therefore, one would hope with the ADA Amendments Act where disability was not going to be as big an issue anymore and that the focus could be on the alleged discrimination, that may make it easier for plaintiffs'' attorneys to take the case. In terms of the question that was posed about someone being asked about their financial losses, the reason attorneys are going to ask that is that for them, they don''t necessarily have deep pockets and they have to make some very hard decisions about what cases to take. And so clearly, they''re looking to see how successful it would appear a given case is. Obviously, there''s a lot of expense in bringing a lawsuit, and not just about the lawyer. I mean, for the individual who wants to pursue this, they''re putting a lot on the line financially for it, so one of the things that a lawyer might well look at is, if we win the case, what would be the damages? What are the financial losses here that could be claimed? And that can vary enormously. Some cases, there really is almost no financial damage at all. Others, it can be quite significant. And how easy or not easy it is to compute, the lawyer should be able to help with that, I mean, in terms of, well, I can get the job and I haven''t been able to find work for a while. Those are things that shouldn''t be surprising to a lawyer. These are things they ought to be able to work with in terms of calculations. But it may influence, again, whether rightly or wrongly, a lawyer''s willingness to take on a certain case. I don''t have any terrific insights on how to find attorneys, and what I tell people is, get in touch with local bar associations and specifically looking for people who do employment law, civil rights law, that I always tell individuals, you need to interview the lawyer just as much as the lawyer is interviewing you, and one of the things you want to know is not just that they have a specialty in employment law or even civil rights law, but what about the ADA? Or for those of you coming from states that have disability discrimination laws, and sometimes those are very excellent laws and offer a lot of protection, so something else to be asking a lawyer, what their experience is with those laws. Because having experience handling civil rights in general is not the same as having experience handling the ADA or the state counterparts to the ADA. And so you really want to make sure that a lawyer that might be willing to take your case is someone who has some background and understanding about this, in effect, you don''t necessarily want someone who is going to be learning on the job and who may not have had as much experience; calling local disability organizations, especially ones that have legal offices themselves; Many disability organizations, and if you don''t necessarily have one in your local area, then the state or a national organization. National organizations tend to have connections throughout the country, and often times the legal may only be a part of the national organizations, not necessarily the smaller state or local or regional offices. But if they have a legal office, you want to talk to that lawyer. First of all, some disability organizations have networks of lawyers who are interested in taking on cases, and so, if you''re lucky, you may get plugged into that kind of network. If they don''t have a formal network, they still may have some contacts, and if they do, in your particular state or city or locality, then, again, this is a head start, a way to kind of get to attorneys who may know something about your disability as well as the ADA. So I''m afraid it will take a bit of effort on the part of individuals with disabilities in terms of tracking someone down. Obviously, there are time lines of filing lawsuits, and what I''ve often told employees, and you''ve got a case pending at the EEOC or your case is pending at one of the sister state agencies that are comparable at the EEOC, you may never need to get a lawyer. Perhaps it will be done at the EEOC. But that is not a bad time to start investigating, because once the EEOC decides not to litigate your case, then you do have only a certain amount of time, if you want to file a lawsuit, to do so. And that isn''t going to give you as much time if that''s when you start your search for an attorney. So maybe you''ll never need the attorney, but it may not be a bad idea while your case is still sitting at EEOC. The time line hasn''t started running yet. That if you even think that may be something; you''re going to feel strongly about, that you want to do some investigation, to start getting some names -- not a bad idea to do it at that point.
Great.
Back to you, Robin.
Thank you. Do we have any questions from the telephone?
There are currently showing no questions from the phone lines.
They''re a silent group today. We have some questions submitted electronically. We''ll keep going with that. We have questions alluded to accommodations here. When reassignment assignment is due to reasonable accommodation, how does the EEOC define quote/unquote open-funded positions? Is it more than just those positions that are -- preparations need to becompleted?
I may need clarification on this one, Robin. I''m not sure Robin, I don''t know what is meant exactly by an open funded position.
I believe they are interpreting that as a position that is currently open and able to hire, versus a position that I have but I''m frozen because of no funding available.
I will go on that basis and whoever asked the question, if we''re wrong about this, please write us back. In terms of reassignment and looking for an appropriate vacant position, what we have certainly said, informally, this is not addressed directly in the commission guidance on reasonable accommodation, we think flows from it, is you are looking for vacant positions that, as an employer, you are intending to fill them, that to the extent you have a position on the books, that at this point in time you are not intending to fill it. And by this point in time, I don''t mean, we''re not filling it this week. We''re going to fill it next month. That''s still a position that the EEOC would readily say, you have to consider for reassignment. What I''m talking about, is positions, right now in the federal government, most federal agencies have some type of hiring freeze going on. And that means that on the books, they may have a position. But at this time with the hiring freeze, they have absolutely no authority to fill it. They hope there will be better days, more appropriations coming at some point, which is why they don''t take the position off the books. It still exists, if you look at personnel records. But there''s no money in the budget to go ahead and hire at this time. So we would not say that that''s a position that an agency would have to look at if it''s looking for vacant positions to make a reassignment. Similarly, in the private sector, there may be reasons that on the personnel or human resources roster, you see certain positions or it could be state and local government agencies. There could be positions that you see on the books. But at this point in time for whatever kind of financial or other reasons, there will be no hiring into that slot, then that is not considered a vacant position for reassignment purposes. The employer would not have to consider that an open slot and think about it for reassigning an employee with a disability. It needs to be a position that the employer is intending to fill, maybe not this week or next, but if the employer knows that in fairly short order, yes, we''re going to advertise it, if we haven''t already. Obviously, if they''ve already started advertising for it, that''s a position they''re intending to fill. But if it''s simply, we haven''t written up the job description, haven''t gotten around to advertising it, or for some employers, it might be, look, we''re almost at the end of a calendar year. Our next financial year begins January 1. We''re not going to advertise until the new fiscal year begins January 1. That would be considered a vacant position, even though today, you know, I might be searching for a possible reassignment today on December 17th. Okay. Fine. You don''t intend to actively look to fill it until January 1. That''s in a basically a couple of weeks. We don''t ask you to put the position in until January 1, but that''s a position that an employer would have to look at. Back to you, Robin.
Thank you. That''s very thorough, sometime you think from reading that one little question to get much more about it. I do have to tell you that the person that had asked that question did respond back saying that you answered the question for them. So obviously, we interpreted that from our perspective.
I don''t give brief answers. As long as you all do your part and ask questions, we''ll get through these 90 minutes.
There''s an individual who is asking a follow-up to the earlier question we had when you were asked about the quote/unquote long-awaited leave guidance, and asking, are there any other updates of existing publications or any new guidances in the works other than that leave guidance that you would be able to speak to?
In terms of documents that EEOC has fairly recently released and hopes to release some more in the new year, one of our long-delayed projects is updating in light of the ADA Amendments Act all our documents to reflect the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act, and that''s long overdue. And finally, this past summer, four of our disability documents -- and of course, I will probably get them wrong, but we had, I think, diabetes, cancer, epilepsy and intellectual disabilities are the four that were updated, and now, you see them updated to reflect the passage of the ADA Amendments Act. We have several more that are in the pipeline. I expect they will be issued in 2014, hopefully not too far into the new year. We don''t tend to talk about which ones are coming out until they do, because it really is up to the commissioners to make that approval, but these are fairly far along in the pipeline. So I expect in the early months of 2014 some more of these documents will be updated. In terms of guidelines which tend to focus not on disabilities but on particular issues, on particular issues, and I can talk about it only because the commissioners have talked publicly about something, then I''m a little freer too. Otherwise, again, it''s more not raising people''s hopes, with this leave document, then they don''t come out, people are often mystified and confused, and that''s a reason we don''t try to talk about things in the pipeline. But one of the areas that''s being looked at and has been looked at again for very long time are the issue of wellness programs which have been become extraordinarily popular with employers, very important. They take all kinds of forms, these wellness programs, and some of them employers have incorporated or tried to incorporate as part of health insurance that they provide. And there have been many issues on the ADA implications of these programs, not least of which have been the question of these programs are often said to be voluntary, but what does that mean? Because if they are involuntary, if employers really are being made to participate in a wellness program, those are generally considered medical exams, and as probably everybody knows, the ADA does regulate an employer''s ability to require employees to undergo medical exams. Not impossible for an employer to require a medical exam, but an employer is required to show the business necessity of it. And this is an area that, again, probably requires more clarification than EEOC has provided. The courts have really not delved into this issue much, and that''s a reason there has been a longstanding request to the EEOC. Can we come forth with more information? At what point does participation in a wellness program move from being purely voluntary -- in which case, there''s no ADA implication, it''s voluntary -- to something the employer is really requiring, and this can involve issues, for example, employers who might say, we''ll give you a T-shirt if you will participate in this voluntary wellness program. Does it mean that it''s not voluntary because they holding out their going to give something in exchange? Is the T-shirt making it into an involuntary medical exam? More to the point perhaps, there are those employers who might say, we will change your health insurance premium. We may require you to pay less for your health insurance if you participate. Otherwise, you know, we''ll start everybody, say, pays $100 a month, but if you participate, we''ll drop it to $50 a month. Well, does that influence an employee to the point where it isn''t really voluntary, to give that kind of real money to people? And it''s in a way requiring people to sign up. So these issues, the commission is well aware of them. The commission has spent a lot of time discussing them. The commission has had a meeting, a public meeting on it. And, again, I think that the commission is looking to put something out in this area. Again, please don''t look for it in the next couple of weeks or couple of months, but I think there is a recognition that it''s gotten to the point the commission needs to sort of highlight that particular issue, and the ADA implications of it. So that''s probably - leaped frogged over some other issues area as one that really does require something from the commission. But again, unless and until the commissioners put something out, that''s when you know they put something out that''s there. But beyond that, no, I really can''t say. But, again, always open and you can do it through the ADA Center, anything you are interested in the commission addressing. We certainly would appreciate hearing what issues that are on your mind that we might do documents on. You''re welcome to send something into the EEOC you really wish we would send something out on, whatever issue. Robin?
Great. Thank you. I''ll go back to the phones and see if anything has come in on the phones.
We do have a question from a participant. Your line is open.
Hi, my question revolves around reasonable accommodations, and I would like for you to discuss a little bit about an ADA coordinator following up asking about medical information what kind of information can or should that individual ask about and not ask about and what would you say would be a reasonable time to respond?
Okay. A reasonable time for the employee to respond to the inquiry?
No, I''m sorry, for the accommodation to be provided from start to finish, the whole process.
These are going to be really hard to answer without -- I don''t want to spend half an hour on a specific question if there''s a bit more to it, but in terms of asking for more medical information, it really depends on what it is that is already known. If, for example, the disability is already known to the employer, then asking for medical documentation should not be happening because that''s already something that the employer knows about. Instead, what the employer may not know about is, yeah, you have a disability, but if I don''t understand why you need reasonable accommodation at all or why you need the specific accommodation you say you need. It''s not A and B, you must have C as your accommodation. That is where the employer entitled to say, I would like to get medical documentation that supports that request. But, again, you know, it''s all dependent on what it is that the employer already knows to begin with, remembering, what should really happen first is some sort of discussion directly with the individual before any medical documentation is requested, is having a conversation, asking questions of the applicant or the employee, depending on who is making the request for accommodations. Often, there may not be any need for medical documentation and the conversation may establish what the employer needs to know. Other times, no the employer wants something substantiated, like employers may say, fine, you say you''ve got a hidden disability, but I would like to have something that just confirms it. And that doesn''t necessarily require much effort, we''re not talking about ten pages of documentation, it''s a simple one or two sentences that''s confirming, yes, the individual has a person disability. There may be more documentation, more need for more explanation as to why an accommodation is needed. And in terms of your second question of how long a process should take or how long it should take to provide an accommodation -- again, without more specifics, in some cases I would answer, it might not take more than a few days. In others, it might be a few months, if it''s something that needs to be purchased or leased or ordered and it''s not readily available and an employer has checked with all the places in terms of where they might get something, then it may take more time than anybody would like, but that''s, you know, there''s very little the employer can do. Other times, it may be that this kind of communication that goes back and forth may take again; sometimes it may be just a matter of days, sometimes weeks. Maybe we''re going to get into a couple of months. I don''t know. On both sides, what I would always strongly encourage is that this should be a priority, for employers, and for individuals with disabilities to respond as quickly as possible if an employer is seeking medical documentation that I know people, doctors are very, very busy. This may not be a high priority. But as a patient, you''re in a better position to plead, nag, whatever, to get the doctor as quickly as possible to respond to the employers'' questions, and for employers, that, again, as I say, obviously, many things are going on, lots of things to do, but when people make requests for accommodation, it should be considered a priority and to be informing each other where things are. If an individual is trying to get information from the doctor, let the employer know that you''re doing things, what it is you''re trying. You know, I left my third message today, that kind of thing and for employers, very important to keep the individual in the loop. What are you doing, if it''s about having to consult, hey, we need to call a Job Accommodation Network. So we left a message, and they''re going to get back to us. You know, keeping people informed of the efforts that you''re making, what you''re doing, why maybe something may be taking longer. No individual wants to feel the person is not paying attention, and I see places of employers are doing quite a bit, but they''re not keeping the individual in the loop, and the person is thinking, you''re just ignoring me. So keep the person in the loop. That''s probably about as definitive as I can get without having any more specific.
It''s all good information, good to hear that clarified. One of my big concerns in this situation was, that the ADA coordinator was saying that they believed that they have a disability, but they wanted to get more information about the disability itself before they determine whether or not the accommodations being requested is in fact reasonable. And this, you know, has taken at least a year or more, and --
Well, that -- I mean, things that have stretched on for a year are a bit of a concern, and you can go back and say, you know, Sharon Rennert of the EEOC said so. Now, maybe this person can come up with some good reasons. But things shouldn''t be taking that long. And it''s not good for the employee and it''s not good for the employer. And again, since you''re using the term "coordinator," I''m assuming -- and I may be wrong in this assumption -- we''re talking about a state agency. Are we?
No.
Okay. That''s often a term used for people within state agencies trying to get accommodation. But this should not be. This should be an outlier. If it''s going to take a year, and I hate to ever say that''s wrong, but that should be a real outlier, and it''s very hard to think of a situation where -- on the employer side. Again, you know, if the employee has dropped the ball and that''s contributed to this, again, you know, this is all very much about specific facts, and you can''t always tell, did somebody drop the ball. And sometimes I''ve seen it''s the employee that dropped the ball, and maybe there are reasons. Something came up, the employer couldn''t get back to the employee. Okay. If that went on for several months, that''s not something that we say would be the fault of the employer. But this goes back to why it needs to be a priority, and it isn''t good to drag these things out. It can make things worse, especially if the accommodation is needed to do the job, then the longer it takes, we''re talking about someone who potentially isn''t performing the job they should be doing, as expected, and that isn''t a situation that anybody should want, least of all an employer. So sometimes there are extenuating circumstances, but if it''s been a year, people meeting, again, what''s going on, where have things bogged down, and what do we need to get out of this logjam, because it should be moving. And again, what employers risk at this point is somebody who says, after a year, in essence, it''s like you''re saying no, and they file complaints and charges of violating the ADA, and we see that every day at the EEOC. There was never a formal decision to say no, but it''s some point where the process is dragging on, and certainly where it''s the employer, not the employee who has dropped the ball, but the employer, the employer is going to have some very tough questions coming from the EEOC about why it dragged on, why it dropped the ball. Well, no, we haven''t said no. The EEOC has found employers liable for not providing accommodations in those circumstances. We never said no. Well, yeah, you did, essentially, but not acting on it. And if we find there was a reasonable accommodation possible -- and obviously we have to find a reasonable accommodation possible that would not have caused undue hardship, we do find employers liable. So certainly there is a risk when these things drag on from the employers legal standpoint.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Good discussion. We will move on to another question that we have that was submitted electronically. Could you speak a little bit about the issue of medical marijuana and where it fits in in relationship to employment, medical inquiry, drugs related issues, given that many more states are now passing laws both for medical marijuana but also recreational marijuana?
Yes. What I can tell you is that whether a state is adopting laws approving the medical use of marijuana or the recreational use of marijuana, under federal law, the use of marijuana continues to be illegal. And that is what controls in terms of the ADA. The ADA does reference or is not influenced by state law, but by federal law. And as long as marijuana is considered an illegal substance under federal law, it is an illegal drug for ADA purposes. Which means that an employer that finds out you are using marijuana, recreationally, medically, lawful in your state, but illegal under federal law, if the employer fires you for that reason, because you''re using marijuana, you''re not going to have an ADA claim there. It''s not protected by the ADA. If your state law protects you from being terminated, that''s a different matter, but you can''t use the ADA. If you fail a drug test, the marijuana shows up, well, I''m taking it, and it''s lawful here in my particular state, you could say, again, whether medical use or recreational use, nonetheless, illegal under federal law. So doing the drug test was lawful. Now, acting on the results of it, you tested positive for marijuana, you are positive for marijuana use, again, if the employer terminates you, ADA isn''t going to help. So we get this question a lot because as Robin noted, more states are making it lawful, at least under certain circumstances to use marijuana. We are aware of it, but there''s absolutely nothing in the ADA to take cognizance of that, and individuals using marijuana need to keep in mind -- and we''ve had a lot of people who have been caught unawares, and they''ve suffered consequences for it in terms of their employers that the ADA isn''t going to offer protection to them.
Is there any plan or anything that the EEOC is doing to put any kind of statement out or clarification of that particular issue, given that you guys are hearing it, we''re hearing it out in the field. Is there any, you know, as you edit or do these documents, putting that in as a QA or put in specific guidelines on this matter?
That I can''t say.
I''m showing no questions at this time.
Okay. Alright! So I''m going to go back to see if there are any more telephone before I go back to electronic.
I''m showing no questions at this time.
OK, We have a question related to obesity. Let me read through it here. I heard Chairwoman Chai Feldblum discuss in an interview the issue of obesity and the ADA. I heard several questions at the end of her interview. Can you please clarify when, quote/unquote, obesity is a disability and how that analysis is made? By the conversation had Chairwoman Chai Feldblum, it appeared the opinion it seemed that the opinion of the EEOC on obesity had changed.
Well, first of all I''m not familiar with the particular interview, so I can''t react to what Commissioner Feldblum may or may not have said. I can tell you that nothing has changed in terms of EEOC''s position. That is, that first of all, as always, with a finding of disability, you start with an impairment, and an impairment can be a condition known as morbid obesity. This was true before the ADA amendments. It''s true after the ADA amendments. Morbid obesity, in the simplest terms, for your gender for your weight, your height, what the standard weight should be -- obviously, there''s a range and not one particular range, but when you''re basically twice what your weight out to be ought to be for your gender, your height, that''s where we''re looking at an impairment. And with any impairment, has to substantially limit a major life activity. Now this may have been what Commissioner Feldblum was indicating. As a result of the ADA Amendments Act, it may be easier for people with morbid obesity that is the impairment, to show substantial impairment in a major life activity as a result to the impairment. Prior to the Amendments Act, that was difficult. Just because you had morbid obesity didn''t mean it was easy to show substantial limitation in a major life activity. Now it may be easier to do so not at least because of the major bodily function. If you have all that extra weight, it may be impacting things like the circulatory system, to name just one major bodily function one may look at. So it could be that Commissioner Feldblum was making the point that a lot of us have made, that it is possible more people with morbid obesity may indeed be covered under the ADA now thanks to the Amendments Act. Simply being a bit overweight, no, I mean, that in and of itself is still not going to be an impairment, and if we don''t have an impairment, then we can''t have a disability. So that''s not changed. Again, the amendments act didn''t change that. So we still have to have the predicate, if you will, of finding the impairment. But there has been no change in how we are approaching the weight issues, if you will. It is really more the idea that more people with morbid obesity, as with other impairments, thanks to the Amendments Act, more people may indeed have coverage, and of course, if they have coverage, then protection against discrimination on the basis of that disability, potentially a right to reasonable accommodation and all the things that flow from having a disability.
Great. Thank you. That was kind of a loaded one. Alright, I''ll take another one from our electron electronic submissions; this is related to Section 503. What is the EEOC doing, if anything, to work with the office of Federal Contract Compliance to address ADA as it relates to Section 503 compliance? Is there any collaboration taking place at this time? That''s the question!
I don''t know if we have collaboration at this time. Certainly the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, I''ll say OFCCP now easier, do collaborate, do have discussions, certainly OFCCP recently enacted of new 503 regulations, there was consultation between the two agencies when they were developing the regulations, before they put it out for notice of comment, after notice of comment, there were still discussions to the extent of overlap, obviously, there are many things that Section 503 does that is way beyond EEOC''s jurisdiction, and that''s strictly up to OFCCP, but to the extent that there are any things that could implicate the enforcement of the ADA, our agencies certainly do have discussions. I know at one point there was concern, and I don''t know if the questioner has this in mind, but at one point there was concerned that the new Section 503 regulations in terms of dealing with affirmative action, which is something that falls under 503, not the ADA, but in terms of affirmative action, the new 503 regulations were proposing that contractors be asking questions in terms of seeing if the potential applicants were people with disabilities and therefore entitled to affirmative action efforts, and employers were concerned that might end up making the contractor, the employer, violate the ADA. Hey, wait a minute, under ADA we''re not supposed to be asking about disability pre-offer, and here''s OFCCP and its proposed regulations and now final regulations basically saying, yeah, we''re supposed to ask these questions. So the legal counsel of the EEOC sent a letter, a public -- sent a letter, a public letter, to OFCCP to address this point. This was the collaboration between the agencies, we were made aware of employer concerns, and we wanted to put their minds at rest. So basically what this letter says -- and you can find the letter on the OFCCP website. It''s part of where they deal with the new 503 regulations -- that the legal counsel of the EEOC says, no, we don''t see any potential ADA violation if you adopt this regulation and are requiring your contractors to seek out disability information whether someone has a disability, they can still be in compliance with the ADA. Why is that so? It''s the EEOC''s guidance published in the mid-1990s on the pre-employment process and asking questions about disability, and in that guidance, which is on the EEOC website, we have a whole section on affirmative action, and not just the 503, but any kind of affirmative action, in which we said if the employer follows certain commonsense basically rules, which we laid out, then they have every right to ask, do you have a disability for affirmative action purposes. Now, we said, you know, you can''t use that to start asking two pages of questions. So how did your disability occur? How long have you had it? I mean, no. Those would be questions that would violate the ADA. But you don''t need all that information if your objective is to see if someone should be considered for affirmative action efforts. And we said, you know, you have to put it on a separate form, separate from the rest of the application. The idea being that perhaps you have any number of people who will look at an application but a far more limited group that will look at the affirmative action information you''re acquiring. You know, that those people alone will see the kind of separate piece of paper or a tear-off sheet, but the idea is that goes to a far more limited group, it may be one person or two people but people who are specifically authorized by the employer to see who should be considered for affirmative action. The fact that you may have people checking on the resumes, their educational background, the work experience, but those are not going to be people who are deciding who is or is not eligible for affirmative action. Then that''s why we say keep it separate and as long as you keep it separate, it''s voluntary, your form makes clear to applicants, you can, you know, choose to fill this out or not choose to fill it out. It doesn''t affect your consideration for a job. The only way it''s going to be used is going to be for affirmative action. You cannot use this information in any other way. So in the EEOC guidance from the mid-1990s, we dealt with this issue, and that''s what the letter from the legal counsel to OFCCP referenced and viewed and said, as long as all this is complied with, then anything in the 503 regulations would not put the contractor in jeopardy, that the compliance with 503 would not lead to a violation of the ADA. So as an example of the collaboration of the two agencies talking to each other, trying to make sure we don''t have employers caught between two federal agencies, that''s the example I can offer there.
Great. That''s great. Thank you very much. Go back and see if there''s anything from the phone.
I''m currently showing no questions on the phone lines.
Alright, I''ll keep going with the electronics then. Here''s a question you''ll think is coming from me but it''s not coming from me but somebody else, because you''ve heard this from me many times, Sharon. The question is a statement, more and more employers are doing business electronically, including recruitment, applications, managing benefits, payroll information, etcetera. Many of these systems are inaccessible. Employers are offering employees the options such as paper applications or setting up a meeting with H.R. to get information on benefits payroll. What is the line between an accommodation and what''s not a reasonable accommodation when others are able to get the same information 24/7?
Yeah, this is an issue, not just you, Robin. Many people, it''s another one of those issues that I wish I could tell you, that, on this date the EEOC is going to address it. But this is something I appreciate, because as soon as I get off, I get to say, once again, the question has come in on the fact that, as you say, and as we''re well aware, employers, including the federal government, turning more and more to the use of electronic devices to convey information, collect information, applications, recruitment, all these things, and once you''re an employee, all the benefits, all the rest of it. Absolutely! And the fact that there continue to be problems with accessibility so I don''t know; again, I can''t tell you when EEOC may come out with something on this. As much as people would like to hear that and I can''t say that at this point. What I can do, in terms of the issue with the question that was raised about the line between, you know, reasonable accommodation to get access, but wait a minute, how close is that to what people without disabilities who can maybe access things 24-7? The way that we started in terms of approaching this issue, certainly, you can look at it, if you''re an applicant; you have to be able to, in a timely way, to hear about job opportunities and to be able to apply to get information. In other words, like somebody who doesn''t have whatever the particular disability, that in real time, that you be able to have, if not identically the same opportunity, certainly substantially, it must be there. Which I mean, for example, if everybody, let''s say, yesterday was Monday, and some job announcement went up so everybody had an opportunity to hear about it, then due to a disability and due to it being inaccessible that somebody may not hear about until January 1 and the closing date is January 2nd for this job, that may be a problem and when I talk about in real time, basically getting people access to the same information, that''s obviously not even close. And so, you know, where''s the reasonable accommodation there? Now, you know, if an employer is willing to give you the same amount of time as whatever it is, that 2 1/2 weeks from December 16th to January 2nd and, you know, you hear about it on January 1st and they''re willing to extend just for you because that was the only way you were going to get the information, well, maybe that is the reasonable accommodation and they have to give that application the same consideration. But obviously, employers aren''t going to want to do that. So one thing, certainly, a lot of people have been trying to urge employers -- and there''s no way to turn the tide back. Things are going to go electronic. Is for employers to really keep at the accessibility issue, so we avoid these kinds of problems, If we do have these problems, then employers are going to have to do a lot, basically saying sorry, you''ll have to wait for the next job opportunity, that''s not going to cut it, and I think a lot of employers are going to have to think of things like my example. You''re just going to have to allow a tremendous extension for some people and you''re going to stop everything and you''re not going to move ahead and all that inconvenience, or what are you going to do to provide a system -- and we don''t like to see totally separate systems, but nonetheless, is there more that an employer can do so it doesn''t have this issue? It isn''t an easy line between, you know, where''s reasonable accommodation as opposed to access, up front, to things? One of the difficulties in this area is that the way the employment provisions of the ADA are written, it''s really about employers reacting to requests for reasonable accommodation as opposed to the employment provisions of the ADA saying, employers, you must be proactive, and you must put in place accessible things. It''s a different approach than, say, we see in Title II and Title III of the ADA where there are requirements to be more proactive, not to wait for somebody to highlight that there''s an issue or a problem. Rather, in employment, employers can wait until someone highlights problems, but in this area, in a way, that may be too late. And we''re aware that it may be too late to do something, which is the reason that they''re kind of these two tracks running, and one is the track of getting employers to think proactively in terms of their electronics and everything they''re doing to improve accessibility to work with many groups. The access board here in Washington, lots of information, lots of potential assistance in terms of other organizations like the ADA Center to help here, it just will be -- as I talk to employers, out of your own self-interest, less of a headache. When you have to approach it as a reasonable accommodation, you have to do it, and you may not be able to say it''s an undue hardship. In fact, it could be hard to say it''s an undue hardship, and yet what you may have to do is inefficient and slow down your process and all kinds of things, and yet you aren''t going to be able to claim that is an undue hardship. So it''s not the best solution, I grant you, for individuals with disabilities, I constantly am saying, as soon as you hear about something, get on it. If you work for an employer and things are inaccessible in terms of electronics, well now you''re on the inside and you should be working with them. If they''re not really responding, make it a request for accommodation, but then you file a charge that you are being denied, you know, I can''t get access to my benefits like everybody else. I''m being made to wait. You know, I tell people, it''s an imperfect system, and I don''t want people to file a charge if I have to wait, perhaps, 24 hours longer than most people do. You know, I think there, you may just have to accept, because I don''t know that that''s going to go anywhere. But where there really becomes a significant delay in getting information, I''ve told H.R. people and their I.T. people, this becomes a priority, over everything else. If you have an inaccessible system then somebody is making an accommodation to get access to something, I would make it the highest priority because if you don''t, then you may be in trouble with EEOC, with on how you handle that request for accommodation. So again, a way to urge them, maybe you want to deal with your accessibility problem instead of drop them and handle them as an accommodation, which is frustrating to everybody, so a very imperfect answer to a very important and relevant question.
Very complex and lots of factors. Thank you. I''ll go back to the telephone to see if there''s any question before I proceed with electronics.
Again, to ask a question please press 1 and then star on your mobile touch tone telephone and we do have a follow-up from a participant. Your line is open.
It''s me again. It''s not real a follow-up. I\t''s a totally different situation, Sharon, and it may be a very short answer, but I thought we''d ask because we have an agency dealing with this. A blanket policy indicating that the individual has to have 100% release to come back to work.
That''s not good. A blanket policy requiring that somebody be 100%? Very dangerous because that''s absolutely excluding the possibility of reasonable accommodation, people do not have to be 100%. EEOC''s guidance on workers compensation issues, I am pretty sure, we talked about the 100% rule there because they do come up with workers compensation. People with workers comp injuries who might not get back to 100%, and we make clear in that guidance, that no, you cannot as an employer have that standard. If someone with or without reasonable accommodation, in this case, with reasonable accommodation, they may not be 100%, but with reasonable accommodation, they can come back to work. They can perform their essential functions. You''re going to violate the ADA. So in those, should not be there. The fix is fairly easy. I mean, if it''s policy, which your question seemed to indicate, those should be amended, that the focus shouldn''t be on 100%. The focus could be something like the ability to perform your job, to do it in a competent manner, to do it in a safe manner. You don''t have to mention reasonable accommodation, but I think it''s a good idea. It reminds people who are implementing the policy, and various people may be implementing it. You may have workers'' comp or risk management, H.R. people, medical units, again, depending on the employer or the organizational chart. So mentioning reasonable accommodation isn''t necessarily a bad idea. But making sure that it''s on the ability to do that job, if they can do it with reasonable accommodation, then they should be put back into the position. So I would say that''s still on the books. Employers should move pretty quickly. That''s kind of raising a red flag to EEOC, like putting the red flag in front of a bull. If an EEOC office gets a case involving a 100% requirement to return to work, I guarantee they''re going to make that case a priority.
Thank you.
Okay. I have a question here that says, an employee has a trained psychiatric service animal dog and has requested to bring the service animal to the job as an accommodation. She''s provided supporting documentation. The employer is refusing, stating that she can take medication that would mitigate her impairment and then would not need the service animal. In your experience has the EEOC investigated similar complaints of this nature and is there documentation according to a similar situation?
I don''t know if EEOC has had a similar case. We are a decentralized agency, meaning the cases come in all across the country and they''re not necessarily all funneled into my office and wouldn''t even attempt it, because at this point we''ve got literally hundreds of thousands of ADA cases, so I can''t definitively say we''ve had this case. I can definitively say with the information provided that if it came to the EEOC, this employer is already looking at a potential violation. First of all, employers should never, ever be suggesting medical treatment to an individual. That is so inappropriate on a number of levels. If this is an employer that has its own in-house lawyer or external legal representation, I would think their lawyers are going to go nuts about now. Because if the employee were to, in this example, go on whatever medication and let''s say something happened, something terrible, a very bad reaction, you can bet multimillion dollar damages are going to be filed against the employer on this basis, which -- that alone is a reason I tell employers, you don''t get mixed up in people''s medical treatment. You''re not to play doctor. Even if you have your own doctors you''re consulting with, you should not be. You stay out of it. And then that means the issue is bringing in the service animal. EEOC in the appendix to its regulations, where we talk about different kinds of reasonable accommodations, we do mention in the appendix that it is a form of reasonable accommodation for an employer to allow a service animal on its premises because normally, most employers do not allow their employees to bring animals into the workplace. And so this would be an exception, and as an exception, why? Because it''s a reasonable accommodation, the use of a service animal and if I heard the question correctly, the employee has provided documentation of how this animal assists the person in terms of their disability, and at this point, the employer has got to provide a pretty solid reason, in other words, undue hardship, if it says, no, we can''t allow it. And maybe they can, but saying, you won''t need the animal if you go get different medical equipment? No. This is an employer at high risk of an ADA violation. So I''m hoping that this can be reconsidered. What I sometimes suggest to employers, if they are reluctant about admitting a service animal is to do it on a trial basis. That may alleviate some of the employers'' concerns. Obviously, all service animals need to be under the control of the owner. They shouldn''t be allowed to wander off. Obviously, if they are properly trained, this should be an issue, but staying under control, not acting aggressively towards anyone else, not being aggressive or barking, what have you, taking the animal outdoors. All those things could be addressed. That''s the beauty of a trial period. It allows the employee to show, look, the dog isn''t doing anything to anybody else, I''m doing my work as I''m supposed to be doing, and so you can choose a week, two weeks, three weeks to do a trial period, address anything that comes up, and if not, you extend it. You simply say, you get to bring the animal in as a reasonable accommodation. I''m not saying that an employer should need a trial basis to do it. But what I try to sometimes work out is, I want to see if we can ultimately get the accommodation in place. And one of the tools in my toolbox is the trial period. That if the employee really wants this animal, then what do they have to lose by going along with a trial basis, even if they think that''s probably not necessary, but for the employer, it gives them a chance to see that it works, that they don''t feel they have to make a kind of, you know, yes or no decision, so you choose a period of a few weeks as a trial basis, but everything goes right, then the trial basis is over, and now, the employer should be granting the accommodation.
Great. Thank you. It''s a big issue, the whole issue of service animals in the workplace and the employers and the assistance and the individualized nature of it is a key factor. We are getting at the bottom of the hour but I do have another question submitted electronically that takes us back to the issue of reassignment of what you had discussed earlier. And just asking how far does an employer need to go when looking for a vacant position and reassigning someone to that position? So, for example, taking the situation if someone with a disability was working for a state agency which has many, many positions, department divisions, et cetera?
Okay. As Robin said a moment ago, it all becomes somewhat individualized. When we''re talking about state agencies, like the federal government, talking about federal agencies, then probably what you are talking about is an agency where the employee currently works. So, for example, if somebody works for the State Department of Revenue or whatever it may be called, along those lines, then you are looking for any vacancy within that Department of Revenue. We''re not looking at the health department. We''re not looking at the transportation department. We''re looking at the revenue department. But we are looking at the entire department. The fact that somebody works for an agency or an office or division within what''s called -- and I''m just leaving it at department of revenue you''re looking at the entire department of which they are a part. They''re an entity within the big entity is with the department of revenue. So it wouldn''t be looking at every single state agency, but rather, in my example, the revenue department is what you''re going to be looking at is probably as far as they have to go. Now, if you''re a big enough state, if you''re talking, say, Texas or Illinois or California or New York, where you may have district offices or satellite offices, let''s stay with the revenue department. It''s not just in the state capital, but we have satellite offices scattered throughout the state. Well, you''d be looking at all those satellite offices too. The person may currently work in the state capital, but that doesn''t mean that you''re only looking there. You may be looking at vacancies at satellite or whatever you call offices in other parts of the state. Now, if you''re going to start geographically looking further afield, you definitely want to talk to the individual. If we are, let''s say, in California, the state capital is Sacramento I''m not going to be looking in San Francisco and Los Angeles and San Diego unless I know whether this person is willing to go to those other cities. What''s the point? So again, the importance of the interactive process, don''t start looking for vacancies until you have a sense how far this person wants me to look geographically. The same thing is true about looking at other entities. Remember, I said, you know, not just I work for a particular division or agency or office within the department of revenue. I might have to look though out the entire department. But, again, is that of interest to this person? The other issue, what about if we don''t have vacancies at that person''s level? Most government jobs aren''t usually some kind of grade level or something like that, but suppose we''re going to have to look at what would be in effect a demotion? Do they want me to look at those jobs, and how far down? They may say, alright, you can look down a couple of grades, but no further than that, because I''m not willing to take that kind of a demotion. On the other hand, I''ve seen cases where people say, I need work, and if the closest you have is ten grades lower than where I am now, I still would like to know about it. I still may seriously consider it. So, again, you know, there should be this dialogue with the individual, really getting feedback from them, staying in touch with them as you''re doing your search to see how far you want to go, how far they want you to look.
Great. Thank you for your responses. We''re at the bottom of the hour, and I apologize I don''t know if we''ve left any questions hanging, but I do want to thank Sharon for her willingness to open this up to any questions people do want to pose. It''s not necessarily the most comfortable position. You don''t know what''s coming at you in terms of preparing in advance, et cetera, but I think we could tell by the responses and the depth of the dialogue with Sharon today that she has a lot to offer us and hopefully you got something out of it today and again I appreciate, Sharon, you taking your time and spending the last 90 minutes with us and our audience on this particular topic.
It was my pleasure, Robin.
Well thank you. So we will conclude today''s session. This session was recorded. It will be available within 24 hours as a recording and the edited transcript will be available in approximately 10 days. We do want to draw your attention to the next session conference audio series, a three-part series starting in January of 2014 running through March of 2014, running through self-evaluation and transition plans. The whole overall series is "What''s Your Plan?" It''s a three-part series on self-evaluations, barrier removal, and transitions. And we''ll focus on both Title II and Title III entities as it relates to the issues of barrier removal and development of plans as to how to remove those barriers. It''s a different context than Title II, but it has relevance and we''ll be addressing that throughout the series. The first will be on January 21st. It is getting started. It will feature two speakers, Irene Bowen of ADA 1, formerly with the U.S. Department of Justice. She has her own consulting firm now. And Jim Terry from Evan Terry Associates who is, again, experienced in the area of providing these services as far as self-evaluations, barrier, and transition plans. So we welcome you to that session and welcome you to register for one or more. You will receive an e-mail at the end of this session which will ask you to fill out an evaluation on the form itself and advise how you can receive certificates of attendance if you''re seeking HRDI and the instructions will be there what you need to do. Thank you for your attention and your participation. Thank you to our speaker, and we hope everyone has a nice holiday and new year. And we will see you in 2014. This concludes our session for today. You can hang up your phone, disconnect your computer, and go on your very way.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. That does complete our conversation. You may call disconnect and have a wonderful day.