Tuesday, May 15, 2018
Do you have a burning question regarding the employment provisions of the ADA? Is there an accommodation issue that you are confused about? Do you have questions about what constitutes a disability under the ADA? Are you clear about what constitutes “leave” as an accommodation under the ADA? What are the guidelines regarding the presence of companion animals and service animals in the workplace? Join us for this popular session where you will have an opportunity to ask your question. We will be accepting questions in advance of the session. The first 25 questions submitted will be given priority and then we will take questions “live” during the session as well.
SpeakersGreat, thank you very much, welcome to the ADA audio conference series which is sponsored by the Great Lakes ADA center in collaboration with the ADA National Network. We are happy that everybody was able to join us for today. This is our May session.
Excuse me, my allergies are definitely getting the best of me these days. Before I introduce our speaker, a few notes about today's session. We do have people who are joining us today in a variety of different modes. We have individuals who are on the telephone, we also have individuals who are in the webinar platform listening to us. You will be able to ask as you saw in the instructions questions different ways, one will be to submit your question in the chat area, and thank you very much for those individuals who submitted your questions early, as you would have seen, we did provide an opportunity for people to submit questions in advance and we did get them and we will be going through those prior to opening it up for your individual questions today. We also have closed captioning which is available in the webinar platform as well. We will be switching back and forth between the platform and the telephone, so those of you that are on the telephone and want to ask your questions. Thank you very much for joining us today. I would like to introduce our speaker, we are very happy today to have with us Jeanne Goldberg, senior attorney advisor in the office of legal counsel with the New York Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has been with us for a number of years as this program is approximately 20 years old that we have the ADA audio conference series. Jeanne has joined us in the past and been a speaker for us in the past. And has been well received. We are very happy that she was able to join us again today, her full bio was posted on the website, so I won't take a lot of time to go through and read that, if you want to refresh yourselves, again you can go back to the website to do that. A reminder, today's session is being recorded and it will be available at the conclusion or shortly after the conclusion of the session for those that may have to leave or missed it and would like to review that information. At this time, I'm going to go ahead and turn the microphone over to Jeanne who is going to give us an update in regards to what is happening with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission before we launch into the questions that you all might have. So go ahead, Jeanne.
Thanks so much, Robin, and thanks for joining us this afternoon. We are going to go through the questions that were asked in advance as well as any that you write in during the session. I'm going to start out with a quick overview of developments here at the EEOC. The first is that I wanted to mention, and we posted this on the webinar website this afternoon, there is an updated version of a list some of you may have seen before, of all of EEOC's ADA enforcement guidance and technical assistance publications, as well as those under the genetic information nondiscrimination act. You can turn to that list, that is 7 or 8 pages, it has all the titles as well as the hyperlinks, so you can click to go directly to that publication on our website, if it looks to be of interest. You should feel free to use these publications, not only to consult on a day-to-day basis for answers, but also for those of you in HR or other capacities where you might produce trainings, internal or external or do your own newsletters or bulletins, or other publications, feel free to lift from any of these documents. There is no copyright, reproduction is encouraged, so please borrow from these however you wish, if you think they could be helpful in your compliance efforts It's been a year of transition between administrations but not yet at EEOC, we have three commissioners and two vacancies. We are currently under the leadership of the acting chair who was appointed by President Trump, Vicky who has been on the commission for close to ten years, and we are awaiting confirmation by the Senate of the two nominated commissioners as well as the renomination of commissioner fell bloom and the nomination of a general counsel. But none of that means that we are in a holding pattern, since everything has proceeded apace, even as we await our complete leadership change. I think I can give you a good sense of our activities and the ADA issues that we are seeing in charge of investigations, kinds of cases that are coming up in litigation. As a quick overview, as many of you no doubt know, on a regulatory note, the EEOC issued a new regulation under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act which applies only to federal government agencies, although it's largely the equivalent of title I of the ADA that applies to private employers and state and local government employers. This new rule for federal agencies recently took effect, and it deals exclusively with the issues of affirmative action, for private employers, affirmative action based on disability has always been permitted but never required. By contrast, federal government agencies are obligated under section 501 of the Rehab Act to be model employers, and that's long been under a instruction to engage in affirmative action. What this new regulation actually does is to set out workforce goals in the regulation for the federal government's hiring of people with disabilities. Goals of twelve percent individuals with disabilities, in a agency's workforce, and 2 percent of those people with targeted disabilities. So these, those are, in other words, more severe, historic disabilities that historically have barred people from employment. These goals are much higher and more forceful than the goals that were adopted for federal contractors a few years back by Department of Labor. There are a number of different ways that agencies can achieve these hiring goals, special hiring authorities, including schedule A and OPM regulations, special hiring for authorities for veterans. And totally new in this space, the regulation requires the federal agencies provide certain personal assistance services, as affirmative action for people with targeted disabilities, who might need that kind of assistance in order to be employed.
That is something that's never required as reasonable accommodation by employers, but it's a special new obligation as affirmative action by federal agencies to provide those kinds of personal assistant services, such as assistance with eating or toileting or moving out of or exiting a vehicle, to enable somebody with a targeted disability to be employed. On the publication list, you will see if you are with the federal agency and are interested in this, and don't have materials yet, the question and answer guides on the new section 501 rule and a special question and answer guide on federal agencies obligations to provide personal assistance services and tips, a separate tip sheet for applicants with disabilities who are applying for federal government jobs.
As far as our enforcement, I can say that in fiscal year 2017 we received almost 32 percent of our charges have ADA claims in them, so of the over 80,000 discrimination charges that EEOC received under all the statutes we enforce, about 26,000 have ADA claims. That is very high. It's only surpassed by race and retaliation. These claims involved all types of impairments, but the highest number were issues involving orthopedic impairments and also various mental impairments, anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar, if you put all those together it was about 20 percent of the charges. Interestingly, the PTSD charges have doubled since about 2010. We don't quite know why that is, or to what extent it might be related to different factors including potentially returning vets entering the workforce, but it's interesting to see that trend in the charges, and it may be something worth being alert to in training and advice. On the publication list, you will see a new publication we had issued called depression PTSD and other mental health conditions in the workplace. Also a publication called mental health provider's role in a client's request for reasonable accommodation at work., something that is geared toward the doctors who is giving the employer supporting medical information to try to make it helpful for the employer. And there is also an enforcement guidance on psychiatric disabilities and several publications on vets and the ADA.
Situations where, or Gina issue, the first is Gina issue where employer in post office or fit for duty exams, has the employer's doctor asking about family medical history. That violates Gina. In pre-offer medical questionnaires, or pre-offer interview questions, employers asking about applicant's medical conditions, that violates the ADA.
Next, employers automatically rescinding offers to applicants if the employer learns in the post-offer exam that they have particular impairments or a history of a workers comp claim, without doing the required individualized assessment of this applicant's present ability, and whether they presently can do the job or pose a safety risk, rather than just basing the decision in other words on their past medical history.
Also, situations where employers are requiring employees returning from medical leave to be completely free of any restrictions and not in need of accommodation, that kind of so-called hundred percent healed policy, violates the ADA.
Finally, situations where employers have been automatically firing someone who requires disability-related leave in excess of 12 weeks, even if the person, the amount of extra leave the person needs would not pose an undue hardship, so, so-called no-fault leave policies based on twelve weeks or some other period of time. So that gives you a quick overview of the big issues we are seeing, a lot of the other cases that come to EEOC seem to be quite straightforward, individual situations, and you can get a flavor for those by looking on our website, WWW.eeoc.gov on the home page, click on newsroom. You will see a press release for each time EEOC files a case or resolves one. So you can get a good flavor for what are the kinds of issues that are coming to us, and many of them are really garden variety compliance issues that boil down to making sure, I think, that even front-line managers and supervisors can't be familiar with all the details in the law, that they know how to spot when they should get some advice to phone home, in other words.
Robin, do you want to start out with what the questions are that we got in advance?
Sure, that would be great, Jeanne. Given your discussion here about some of these topics with this guidance and things, I'll start with a set of questions that was asked specifically around the issue of when someone is requesting accommodations, are they required to meet with the employer's physician and/or is an employer able to ask for a second medical opinion?
Oh, okay, these are good questions. Let me first state the basic rule about medical information in support of an accommodation request. Employers can ask for medical information in support of the accommodation request, if either the disability or the need for the accommodation is not obvious or already known.
So an employer is entitled to satisfy itself that the employee has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, and that they medically need what they are asking for. Those can be two separate things.
Typically, the employer goes about this in either of two ways. First, either by asking the employee to go get from their treating physician the supporting information that is needed, and telling the employee, we want to know your diagnosis, your limitations, what accommodations are needed, how long you are expected to need this accommodation, have your doctor write that up and send us a letter or bring us some kind of supporting information. Alternatively, the employer could ask the employee to sign a release, limited release allowing the employer to contact the employee's doctor directly, to ask these questions, to get the information medical information in support of the accommodation request. There is no limit on follow-up to get missing information, to clarify whatever the doctors provided that is not clear, to ask if an alternative accommodation that the prior might prefer would meet the employee's medical restrictions, to ask the doctor about that. A lot of employers are familiar with under the FM L.A., the Family Medical Leave Act enforced by Department of Labor that there is a very strict protocol in terms of the form that you give the employee and the second opinion, and it's very prescribed. But there is no micromanaging by the ADA similarly of how the employer can get the supporting information. As long as it's not obvious or already known, the employer is allowed to get reasonable supporting medical information.
This first question you ask which is I guess from the employee perspective, when you are requesting accommodation, are you required to meet with the employer's physician. The ADA does not prevent an employer from requiring the employee to go see a doctor who the employer has chosen. So this comes up, for example, if the employee provides insufficient documentation from their treating physician, to substantiate that they have an ADA disability or they need accommodation. It might be insufficient because it does not specify the existence of a disability or explain the need for accommodation. Maybe the employer thinks, this treating physician is not really the professional with the relevant expertise to give me an opinion about this employee's medical condition. They are a doctor in a whole different area. Maybe the information doesn't specify the functional limitations the person has that relate to the accommodation requests, or even in some situations, the employer might suspect that the information provided is not credible.
Really the best way for the employer to proceed in that situation, I think, is before resorting to sending the employee to their own chosen doctor, the employer should probably explain why the documentation is insufficient and allow the employer or their doctor the chance to provide the missing information in a timely manner to fill in the gaps to clarify. And then, if it's still insufficient, of course, the employer could if they choose to at their own expense seek out the medical opinion of their own chosen doctor and that could include telling the employee to go for an exam with the employer's chosen physician.
Probably the best practice is for the employer to make sure that if their doctor reaches a different conclusion, that they circle back with the employee's treating physician to make sure they were operating on the same set of facts, and that there isn't anything they missed, and to determine whether there is any basis for reconciling their two different opinions.
But if an employee refused to submit to the medical exam by the employer's chosen physician, where the employer is in a situation where they are allowed to do that follow-up, the employee would not be entitled to the accommodation, because they failed to engage in that interactive process. So it is a tool that an employer can use in some situations, to get that exam of the employee by their own chosen physician and add that information into the mix as they make their decision. The other question that you asked, Robin, was really I guess from the employer perspective, which is under the ADA, you said are you able to ask for a second medical opinion.
The employer can do that, at their expense. So in other words, as I was saying, if the employer doubts the correctness of the employee's treating physician's conclusions and recommendations, the employer can pay for the employee to go for a second opinion at the doctor of the employer's own choosing, just as I said before, as a practical matter have you tried to clarify first with the treating physician what information you think you are missing, or, you know, otherwise to satisfy yourself using the treating physician. And if that second doctor, your own doctor that the employer sends the employee to reaches a different conclusion, you probably should ask them to circle back to the treating physician to discuss it, to make sure nothing was overlooked. Also, you want to make sure that as the employer, if you are sending an employee's records or the employee themselves to your chosen physician for an exam, that you are making sure your doctor, your chosen doctor has all the relevant information. If you resort to just sending the employee to your own chosen physician for an exam with no records from the treating physician, with no opinion or information from the treating physician, with no other necessary information and specific questions that you have, I think the opinion is not going to be worth very much, because the doctor isn't going to have what they need as a basis to give you their view. Robin?
Yep, great, thank you. Thank you. Kind of in the same vein here, employer questions and things of that nature, this is a FML and leave related question, not specifically -- more of a comparison type of thing. How do you determine how much time to give an employee leave if they request it under the ADA, and what if they have already used up, I'm assuming it means they have used their 120 days of FMLA time off at that point, how does that factor into it, is what the person is asking.
Okay. So sometimes the employee either is not eligible for FMLA because they have not been employed at least a year, or the employer doesn't have at least 50 employees, or the employee is covered about it FMLA but they have used up their 12 weeks for the calendar year, and they or their doctor on their behalf say to the employer, she needs more time, she needs six more weeks, she needs two more months, even though she's had twelve weeks off, she needs additional time for treatment or recuperation from the disability related limitations.
So the question for the employer is whether that additional time that is requested would pose an undue hardship. When considering that leave request though, that request by the employee for additional time on top of FMLA under the ADA, as an accommodation, the employer is allowed to consider all the time that was taken off, in other words, the twelve weeks under the FMLA, let's say plus the two additional months sought under the ADA, whether all of that time together would pose an undue hardship on the employer's business, a significant difficulty or expense.
I should mention that there are a couple of circuits most notably a recent decision from the 7th circuit court of appeals, where the court ruled that ADA does not require multi-month leave as a reasonable accommodation, that that is just what FMLA is for. And that you might be able to get some days or weeks under ADA, but that would be the limit.
The EEOC and most courts disagree with that, and have analyzed these requests for additional time after FMLA has expired, under the undue hardship standard. So if the doctor can say the person will be able to return even if they can only give an approximate date or range of dates, then the question for the employer is whether granting that additional leave requested would pose an undue hardship. And there is no set time, no set amount of extra time you need to give the employee off, because the answer is different in every case. An example that comes to mind is, two cases from recent years involving nurses and hospitals, both of whom needed unscheduled leave as an accommodation when symptoms of their disability flared up. In one case, out of California, the nurse worked in the NICU in the hospital running specialized machines and equipment that she had to have a lot of training to do. The court said it would be a undue hardship for her to be out on a unscheduled basis because they couldn't readily get somebody else on short notice to fill in, who had those, that training and not only that background but also the training on the specific equipment and working in the NICU. In the other case, the nurse, a nurse who also needed unscheduled leave periodically due to flare up of disability related symptoms, it was held not to be an undue hardship to grant that, because looking at the facts of the particular case, the employer had a large roster of nurses, more than were scheduled to work at any given time, and when anyone called in for any reason, that they couldn't make it, they had other folks, on other shifts, who they would, who weren't on that day's or week's shifts who they could go to. They also had a temporary service that they called on that sent nurses, that didn't require training that the temporaries couldn't do to perform the job. They could fold in.
Since the employer had the demonstrated capacity to absorb that intermittent absence for a variety of purposes, it was not an undue hardship to grant it to that particular, the leave on a unscheduled basis to that particular nurse.
So that gives you a flavor of the way in which EEOC and the courts look at the particular workplace, the staffing, the impact on the work, the training and qualifications necessary for the job, how you would handle the absence to determine whether it is an undue hardship in a given case, to give that employee the additional amount of time that they need, whether it's a block of leave, so it's the length of leave sought, would that be an undue hardship or whether it's the frequency or unpredictability of intermittent leave. You look at whether it would be an undue hardship under the ADA, and that is very different than under the FMLA, which is enforced by Department of Labor, which gives, if the person meets the qualifications, this sort of automatic right to twelve weeks of leave for the employees, serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition, and there is no undue hardship defense that comes into play under the FMLA, just a list of certain requirements and certification that are needed.
I will mention one more thing, which is on the list of publications, that Robin has on the conference website, we have, and you will see it, on page 3, a publication issued just about two years ago, called employer-provided leave and the ADA. It goes through all these different examples of what might be an undue hardship or not based on the facts, to give you more to look at and go through all the factors, but also some specific examples. Robin?
Thank you. Since you were mentioning FMLA, we had another question, that has relationship to that. That is can you talk about whether or not a employee would be able to use ADA leave or FMLA leave for a child's disability accommodation?
That is a good question. No, you would not. The ADA only provides for accommodation of the applicant or employee's own disability. The ADA does prohibit discrimination based on association with a person with a disability, but that associational discrimination under the ADA is limited to where I might, for example, treat someone differently as an employer, because of their association with a family member, for example, with a disability. An employer can't, based on stereotypes or assumptions about caregiving responsibilities, just refuse to hire, for example, or refuse to promote an individual with a family member with a disability. That would be discrimination based on association with a person with a disability. The employer can certainly tell the individual or have whatever requirements they have for the position or the promotion, and you have to work 8 million hours a week and do all this travel and those can be the requirements of the job, and not hire somebody who for whatever reason, caregiving or otherwise, says that they are unable to do that. However, the employer cannot assume, based on a stereotype about a person with a disability or caregiving responsibilities related to a person with a disability, that someone would not be qualified for the job based on that association. But there is no requirement under the ADA to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee to allow them to care for a family member or other person with a disability. In other words, that accommodation provision does not apply to association with a person with a disability. The ADA association provision is limited to prohibiting the type of disparate treatment that I mentioned, or harassment of a person based on their association with someone with a disability. But there is no accommodation under the ADA, accommodation right under the ADA for an employee to get leave or any other accommodation to care for a family member with a disability. If you want to read more about what the association provision does allow, and these limits, how it does not apply to provide accommodation on page 5 of the publication list, you will see a Q and A on association provision of the ADA. Robin?
Great, thank you, Jeanne. Staying in the same vein, with some of the questions, can you address the issue of what documentation employers may require when someone is returning after being out on leave, so we are kind of on this leave thing here. So what kind of documentation can an employer require that a employee bring, and can they require a fitness for duty exam, or documentation from the employee doctor is sufficient?
Okay, yes, when an employee is returning from leave, the employer can ask the medical questions, in other words, make disability-related inquiries or require a medical exam, if, if the employer has a reasonable belief that the employee's present current ability to perform the job is impaired by a medical condition, or that he will pose a direct threat to safety due to a medical condition. The question is whether the nature of the leave that was taken, what the employer already knows about the condition for which the leave was taken, the nature of the treatment during the leave, what they already know would give them a reason to believe that even though the person has been cleared to return to work, by their doctor, that they may in fact due to a medical condition not be able to perform their job functions or pose a direct threat to safety. Does the employer have a reasonable belief for questioning that, and therefore, for seeking follow-up fitness for duty information. So this could arise, either because the employee calls up and says I'm ready to come back, or the employee submits something from their doctor but it's very conclusory and says they are free to come back, they are fit to come back.
The question for the employer who wants to get follow-up medical information in response to that to satisfy themselves the person is able to come back is, do you have a reasonable belief given the nature of the absence that their present ability to perform their job or do so safely is compromised. If you look in the inquiries and exams guidance, it's also on the list, policy guidance on making disability-related inquiries or medical exams of current employees, it's on page 4, question 7 I think it is goes through some examples. The first is, I think these are helpful to view it on a spectrum of possible patterns that might come up, the first is, involves a data entry clerk. She broke her leg while skiing. She was out for four weeks. She returns to work on crutches. There is no reason, in that situation, why the employer would seek medical information. They don't have a belief based on objective evidence, either that her ability to type and do her other essential functions or do it safely would be impaired by medical condition, she is back at her desk. She just is on crutches due to the broken leg. But there is no basis for getting, asking her for follow-up medical information about her fitness for duty if those are the only facts. By contrast, there is an example there where the employer knows the person was out on leave because he was having difficulty with his psychiatric medication, it had to be recalibrated. He had made threats to several coworkers and was disciplined. They have a six-week hospitalization for treatment. He is released to return to work by his doctor, who sends a very cursory note simply saying cleared to return to work. In that situation, by contrast to the typist with the broken leg, based on what precipitated the leave and what the employer knew about the nature of the treatment that the person was off for, the employer has a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that the person might pose a direct threat due to medical condition, and it can ask the employee for additional documentation about their treatment or medication, to know that they are qualified, able to perform their essential functions and don't pose a direct threat. It might be questions about medication or treatment or requests that he submit to a medical exam before being cleared to return to work. So those are just two of the examples that you can find in that guidance on that question about when do you, when can an employer, should an employer seek, when may an employer seek supporting medical information, that somebody is fit for duty, and when they are returning after a leave of absence. Robin?
Great. Thank you. Complicated issues sometimes.
Here is a question on definition of disability. What is considered under the ADA, would migraine, fibromyalgia, obesity, infertility, will all these now be considered disabilities following the ADA Amendment Act?
That is a good question. The ADA amendments act obviously made these changes to the definition of disability making it much easier for many impairments to meet the definition of what is an impairment that substantially limits major life activity. But there is still no set list of medical conditions that are automatically covered or not. Congress chose to keep the legal standard to be that you look at each person, their physical or mental impairment, and whether for that person, the impairment substantially limits a major life activity. They made all these changes to the standard to make it much more likely that someone would be covered, they expanded major life activities to include major bodily functions, so for example, diabetes, substantially limits function of the endocrine system, one would think.
You look at somebody without the benefit of any medication or other mitigating measures they might use, you look at the underlying impairment, if that is substantially limiting. And if the impairment is episodic, it comes, flares up and remits or it's in remission, you look at whether it's substantially limiting when active. So all these changes make it much more likely something would be a disability, but that doesn't mean that everything is covered, and there is still no set list you can consult of medical conditions that are in or out. As far as the specific ones you asked about, obesity is actually a hotly contested issue in the case law as to whether or when that is covered as a disability. EEOC has taken the position that morbid obesity, which is a medical diagnosis, is a physical impairment, and then they apply the standards to see if that person's morbid obesity substantially limits them in their circulatory function or other major bodily functions, major life activities. There are a number of courts that have held, however, that obesity including even the medical diagnosis of morbid obesity is not a disability.
It's something that, as I said, is hotly contested in the case law. As far as infertility, in and of itself, I'd say that is similarly quite contentious. It certainly, we would look to see if there is an impairment, it certainly is easier to show disability coverage if the infertility is a symptom, side effect, a result of some other impairment, and that may be the easiest case. Otherwise, I think the court decisions are all over the map about that.
The others you mentioned, migraines and fibromyalgia, I think those are much less controversial. There are plenty of cases post ADA Amendment Act finding that those meet the definition in a given case, for example, migraines, that is an episodic impairment, when the person is having a migraine, you would ask, are they substantially limited in a major life activity, without the benefit of any medication. You can see how that would be much easier to meet the standard.
EEOC's regulations have a bunch of examples of conditions that they think will virtually always meet the standard. A lot of conditions like blindness, deafness, missing limbs, bipolar, PTSD, but also they give examples of things that may or may not given the facts meet the definition, and you look at how long the limitations are supposed to last, and what they are, and how limited the person is.
There is an example in the EEOC's amend the ADA regulations of a back impairment that is going to cause a 20-pound lifting restriction that's lasting several months or expected to last for several months, and that that would be a substantial, a impairment that substantially limits lifting. Even that could be a disability, no longer does a medical condition have to be permanent or long-term to meet the standard. In real time, as an employer, if it's not obvious, you may want to verify through medical requested medical documentation that the person has that diagnosis, what their limitations are, what accommodations they need. You may have back and forth with the doctor to see if alternative accommodations that you are interested in providing in lieu of what was requested, whether those would meet the, fit the bill, whether those would meet the person's restrictions. So you are just not going to demand the same kind of extensive analysis of medical records that might have been involved pre ADA Amendment Act. Rather, get to the main points. There are certainly examples in the case law of things not covered even by the expanded definition of disability, cases involving sprains and torn ACLs and H1N1 flu. There is also, I have to say in case there is any litigators on the phone, there have been quite a number of cases where the plaintiff's lawyer has simply failed to put in the evidence in the lawsuit, failed to put that evidence into the record about the person's disability, just simply assuming incorrectly that by virtue of the ADA Amendment Act being enacted that would be it. And the person would always be covered. But that is certainly not the case. And when it comes to litigation, the plaintiff has to put in enough evidence and those requirements that do that haven't been eliminated by the ADA Amendment Act but none of the rules for a employer's ability to verify somebody has really got this condition and that it's limiting enough that they need an accommodation, none of those rules have been changed by the ADA Amendment Act so the employer can still go through the interactive process, even though it's going to be with a lighter touch. Robin?
Thank you. Yeah, that definition question is a tough one people continue to struggle with here and there.
Here is a question that is inevitable.
Relates to the issue of service animals and emotional support animals. Department of Justice in their 2010 ADA standards, sorry, regulations, revisions, for title 2 and title 3 define a service animal very specifically. However, title 1 does not have a similar definition or doesn't have any definition specifically in title 1. So the question here is does title 1 allow for emotional support animals in the workplace, as opposed to service animals or vice versa. And related to that, can you generally talk about how they are defined in general, emotional support, and how they be treated under title 1, and if it was an accommodation, can employers place specific restrictions, things like specific breeds, like no pit bull, etcetera, etcetera, in that regard. Kind of a complicated question ... (overlapping speakers) service animal, emotional support animal, when, how, what, and (overlapping speakers) restrictions on employers.
It's interesting, as you say the Department of Justice in the prior administration addressed in their title 3, title 2 and title 3 regulations at a very granular level what the definition of a service animal is, and specifically limiting it to dogs and miniature horses, and it has to be trained to perform a specific task.
On the other hand, it's always been the case under title 2 and title 3 that the DOJ has said there are strict rules about the limited amount of information that the, for example, public accommodation owner can ask for or get, limited amount of documentation and so on, to admit the individual with the service animal into their place of business. So maybe because it's a one-off type of transaction, when you are seeking to go into a store or hotel or movie theater, they have put much greater limits on what the business owner can demand in terms of any type of documentation, but given guidance about these basic questions, but on the other hand they have gotten into a lot of detail about what constitutes a service animal, and they have this very now much more restricted definition.
EEOC has never addressed that, those same questions, as a separate freestanding issue, as service animals, in our regulations, or in decisions, that have been issued, administrative decisions. So what happens for employers, before EEOC, is simply that service, requests to bring a service animal into the workplace is effectively a request for an exception to a policy, like any other accommodation request, right? You are asking for an exception to the no animals in the workplace, in the building rule. And if there is such a rule.
And it's treated like any other accommodation request. It's a request for an exception to the no animals rule, and the employer is free to proceed just like with any other accommodation request. So if the disability or the need, the medical need for the accommodation for having the animal is not obvious or already known, the employer can ask for supporting medical information through this interactive process, to determine that person has a substantially limiting impairment. They medically need the animal. You could determine what the diagnosis is, why the animal is needed, whether or not it's disruptive in any way. So a lot more information, I suppose that an employer is entitled to get through, under title 1, through the interactive process, because these requests are treated simply like any other accommodation request, so a lot more information than maybe a business owner might be allowed to obtain under title 3, where it's just a one-off transaction of somebody coming into your store, for example.
So, we have not seen a lot of these charges. Typically, we are still just really getting the most classic type of somebody who is blind wanting to bring their dog into the workplace, really straightforward questions, not charges involving the unusual or exotic animals that have featured in a lot of stories recently about airplane travel and the rest.
So we just aren't seeing those. I don't know whether it's because there are a lot of state and local laws now that have provisions, discrimination provisions regarding comfort animals, and so it may be that if someone has an issue with one of those, they are bringing their claim to the local or state Human Rights Commission under that local law. But as far as the EEOC is concerned, as far as title 1 of the ADA is concerned, we don't have any guidance that makes a distinction in terms of what, whether the animal is a trained performance task that relates to emotional comfort, or a different type of task. We just don't have that, anything addressing a distinction between emotional support animals as opposed to so-called service animals as defined under the DOJ reg. We would treat all the same, barring any guidance to the contrary, as an accommodation request. It may be that in some of the cases involving emotional support animals, that the interactive process will result in the employer learning that there is not a medical diagnosis or there is not a medical need for the accommodation requested of having the animal present, and that is going to result in a denial of accommodation, just like it would with any other thing that is requested that isn't, where those things can't be established, the disability and the need for accommodation. The employer has a lot more latitude under title 1, to ask for that information, and to satisfy themselves.
Beyond those threshold issues of does this person have a disability, do they medically need to have the animal present in the workplace, there are obviously issues of undue hardship as with any other accommodation request. So the employer would certainly be allowed to satisfy themselves that the animal is not going to be disruptive, the employer might be getting documentation in some situations from the animal trainer or other way that the employee is going to offer to demonstrate the animal's ability to behave properly in the workplace and not pose an undue hardship due to any disruption, any safety issues, not being under control of the employee and so on.
There is a great publication on the job accommodation network website, askjan.org, called service animals in the workplace, that discusses both the -- recognizing that a lot of people have this question that you pose because of the very specific DOJ rules, kind of pulls together from both the employer and the employee perspective what this interactive process might look like, and the grounds on which an employer might grant or deny a request to bring a service animal into the workplace. So I really commend it to you, it's called service animals in the workplace, and if you go on askjan.org and type service animals into the search box it will come up as one of the first hits. Robin? More about that you want me to address?
No, I think that, the only thing is again, I think you clarified the question about specific breeds, things of that nature, that might be part of the undue hardship or other considerations, would that be --
I think so, I think because the employer is entitled to satisfy themselves that no undue hardship is posed, if there was any concern about the particular animal, in other words, the employer would be entitled to satisfy itself that this particular animal, whatever animal it is, that the employee is seeking to have present in the workplace as an accommodation, that it's appropriately trained and that it does not pose an undue hardship. So, that could be based on any number of considerations.
There is also a lot of discussion I have heard pleaser raise about the option of having a trial period, and that is certainly permissible with any type of accommodation, and you know, where you would allow the employee in this situation to bring the service animal in on a trial basis, and see if allowing the animal is effective, and if it does not pose an undue hardship. There is no set time frame for doing that, but you can do it for one week, you can do it for four weeks or six weeks, enough time to assess the situation. But that is always an option too, if there is a question that you can't really resolve through the cold information in the interactive process that you obtain about whether this would be disruptive or not, and whether the animal would behave appropriately.
Great, thank you. I did enter that website and the name of the fact sheet into the webinar platform, so folks can look for it there as well.
Great.
Thank you very much for that information. We will switch gears a little bit, and here is a question that, are unpaid workers such as volunteers or student interns covered by title 1? For example, we have many medical professional students who come to do internships of three to six months or more with us. They are quote-unquote, unpaid positions, but they are working and doing the same things as paid employees under supervision. If they require accommodations, do we address them as an employee or are there other obligations?
That's a great question. For unpaid or volunteer interns, usually, coverage, whether somebody is covered as an employee under the EE, federal EEO laws, turns on whether, even though they are unpaid, they receive some kind of remuneration in some form, insurance, worker's comp, access to professional certifications and that may feature that last one in determining that a medical intern might be characterized as a employee under the law even though they are not paid. So, for example, you could have situations where an educational institution provides a lot of significant benefits to an unpaid intern for their volunteer work, and then they qualify as an employee of that employer. There are also situations where even though the person is unpaid, and even though we know that volunteers and interns as a general matter are not covered, those unpaid folks are considered employees because their volunteer work is required as a prerequisite to getting regular employment. It leads to, regularly leads to paid employment with the same employer. A good example is police and firefighter academies or other training programs that you go through, and it's a prerequisite, it's an apprenticeship or training program that leads to necessarily is a prerequisite for the employment.
That is what we look at. I guess bottom line with these medical interns and medical students, although like I honestly, there are cases going both ways, as a practical matter, you may have an obligation to accommodate either way, because if the person is still a student, then you may have an obligation, it's a college or university hospital for example, obligations under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or title 2 of the ADA toward those medical students. And then if the individual is considered an employee, an obligation under the ADA. There have been interesting cases that have come up lately, one against Johns Hopkins University, where they had a deaf nursing student, they did accommodate her with a sign language interpreter through the whole period of her education. She graduated, they hired her for a job, and at that point they wanted to stop providing the full-time sign language interpretation, once she was hired, because they viewed their obligation to be different under title 1, and they lost that case, applying the title 1 standards, they had an obligation to her as an employee. There was a whole analysis of whether or not it would pose an undue hardship to provide the sign language interpretation. But I think this comes up a lot where the employer is, the institution is dealing with folks who are students, and they may or may not then become employees, and even if different laws come into play, you may have an obligation either way to accommodate. Robin, have you seen that situation?
Yeah, we get quite a bit of this, from the student body, it's important that there be a ongoing dialog and discussion at the education institution that the student was coming from, and these are things that should be discussed during the process of signing contracts, things of that nature to take students on as well. It's a critical aspect of the process.
One thing I'll add though, that has come up with this, is that the type of accommodation that a student might be entitled to in some respects may differ from what they are entitled to as an employee, and this may just be as part of an interactive process, a matter of educating the individual who requests accommodation, once they transition into an employment setting. Specifically, I'm thinking about the fact that in the education setting, sometimes accommodations allow for extra time to complete assignments, extra time for tests, fewer numbers of problems or, in terms of let's take the example of a math test for younger students, or a homework assignment, where students may have come all the way through and been used to getting certain types of accommodations that involved fewer number of assignments or shorter assignments and/or extra time to complete assignments or for tests.
Those types of accommodations may not translate at all in the workplace, whereas we know, an employer never has to lower performance or production standards as an accommodation. In other words, an employer does not have to allow an employee to complete fewer reports or allow an employee extra time to complete their reports, compared to what all employees in that job are permitted, are required to do.
That may be an issue that comes up in the interactive process, with the employer explaining what the, to the individual, what they are entitled to in the workplace, which may be different from what they were entitled to an accommodation in the school setting.
Different than accommodations in their internship, if the internship is part of the education process and not employment, there may still be accommodations, we sometimes see altered schedules, things of that nature, might provide a student in a internship situation, that might not be reasonable and may not follow the same category (overlapping speakers).
Right.
Great, thank you.
Other questions?
Yes, we do have more here. Then we will open it up. I'll remind people that are on the phone or webinar platform, if you want to start to submit your questions that you might have, you can use the chat room. We will be asking the operator in a few minutes to ask people on the phone if they want to queue in for questions as well. We will keep going. We have some time. At what point can a employer terminate employee with a disability who is not able to perform their job duties with or without accommodations? Do we have to retain them until a position is available that they can be reassigned to, or someone leaves or retires? What if there is no current position available?
Well, that is a really good question. No, an employer does not have to retain an employee who is not qualified to do their current job, and if there is no vacant position for which they are qualified to reassign them to. In that instance, the individual is going to be subject to either termination or disability retirement application, if that is available, or short term or long term disability insurance, if the employer has that available. But they are not going to be entitled to remain employed with no position.
What happens is, the employer concludes there is no way to accommodate this individual in their current position. We have tried, we have looked, we can't. Okay, we are going to look at whether there is a vacant position we can reassign them to. We don't have to create a position. We don't have to bump somebody from a position. We don't have to promote the individual to a higher level position. We are going to talk to the individual about what kind of work they are able and willing to do, what level they are willing to go down to if there is nothing available at their current salary level, if there are different geographic locations where they are willing to relocate to if at all. Then those are going to provide the parameters for the vacancy search.
Employers should memorialize that, what the employee said about what they are willing to take and what they are able to do. And then you are going to look at whether there are any vacancies that fit those restrictions and that the employee is qualified for, that they can perform with their medical restrictions with an accommodation if need be. That search for a vacancy need not take any particular amount of time.
Sometimes, it might take literally an afternoon or a few days or a week, but not more, because the employer has a limited number of vacancies or they have access to this information on a centralized database and they are able to hone in pretty quickly.
There are other situations where it may take longer because the person conducting the vacancy search handling in accommodation request needs to contact various supervisors of those vacancies to find out exactly what is entailed in the position and figure out if this person's medical restrictions could be accommodated in that position and so on.
How long it takes varies, but they are based on your access to this information, as the employer. But there is no set amount of time that you need to look. Once you have concluded that there is no vacancy presently to which you could reassign the individual, then that is the end of the interactive process, and you have fulfilled your accommodation obligation.
On the other hand, if you come up with several positions that they might be qualified for, then you may pick the one and offer it to the individual, and they may or may not accept it. For example, if it's a lower salary, they may not want to or if it involves moving, they may not want to. But by making that offer of a position that meets their medical restrictions, as a reassignment, you have fulfilled your obligation.
There is no set amount of time. I think that sometimes folks think mistakenly there is a set amount of time because the enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodation when it talks about figuring out what is a vacancy, includes in vacancies positions that you are already advertising, and also positions that you know are going to become vacant in a short amount of time, for example, you have already gotten the notice that somebody is retiring in four weeks. That position could be considered a vacancy. But, and maybe if that position fits the bill, and it's about to become vacant, maybe this individual could be on a unpaid leave in the interim, until you can trans, reassign them into that position.
But other than that reference to a position that you know is going to become vacant in a reasonably short period of time, there is no reference to a time period for which you have got to search for vacancies. It is not required under the ADA to be some ongoing process where you search for weeks or months. The amount of time it takes is really just a function of how long it takes the employer to assemble and assess this information. Robin?
Great, thank you. I'm glad that somebody asked this next questions because it's one of the things that I have, and probably your colleagues could verify that I've asked a million times, never happy with my responses that I get so I'm glad somebody asked this and the question is what is the EEOC doing about accessibility of web-based information, that are used by most employers now for applying for a job, even within their own internal HR function? Many employer websites are not accessible and prevent someone who uses an assistive technology from having the same access to information as employees or applicants without disabilities. Asking for a paper application or contacting them about the inaccessibility sets up a red flag that you have a disability and may not get the same treatment as other applicants. I've worked for employers where I could not access their internal HR website to see my benefits, pay stubs, W-2's etcetera and had to work one on one with HR staff to get that information which meant I couldn't do it from home or privately. Why is this not an employment issue too?
Okay, wow, all right. I'm going to take the second part first (chuckles) about internal systems that employees, current employee needs to use, whether it's a supervisor certifying time and attendance records, inaccessible, a pay system that is inaccessible, won't work with their screen reader or, you mentioned benefits, other things that someone might do as an employee, and that the interface is not accessible. That is a title 1 ADA accommodation issue. And the employee should notify HR that they need accommodation, and the accommodation might be accomplished by the employer, either by an individualized workaround, if they do that sufficiently, or by making the actual system accessible.
There is no one way they need to do that, but you should treat it as a request for accommodation, where you run into that. If you are a federal government agency, everything that you procure has to be accessible under the standards under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and every agency has its own complaint procedures for employees or members of the public to raise violations of Section 508, and lots of information about that made available by Department of Justice on section, Section 508,.gov. The harder question you raise is about online application systems. EEOC does have in its current strategic enforcement plan a priority listed of the enforcement priorities that we have, one of them as barriers to recruitment and hiring. An example that the commission gives in the strategic enforcement plan is looking at the restrictive application processes that gives an example of on-line systems that are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities.
The reality is we have not received any charges at all alleging this type of discrimination. But we are aware that applicants have run into this barrier. It's ironic because many times we think of technology as a boon for individuals with disabilities, but if it's inaccessible, it obviously is not. There was a very well publicized case decided in the fourth circuit last year versus Montgomery County, where Montgomery County Maryland upgraded its whole countywide call center, a new 311 number that you would call, and even though they had a blind employee who used a screen reader, in their then existing call center, they failed to check with the vendor when they upgraded the technology for the new system as to whether it would be compatible with her screen reader. It turned out that it wasn't, and it would have cost them $125,000 at least to go back and make it accessible after the fact, and the court rejected the county's argument that that would be a undue hardship, even though that is a large amount of money, looking at the multi-million dollar budget of the call center and of the county, the billion dollar budget of the county itself. So it's expensive to make these mistakes.
The employer is in the drivers seat when you are making these original selections, the vendor, at that point, will want to do everything for you, and you can insist on a demonstration. You can ask about other employers who have bought the same technology, and you can, so that you can contact them and find out what their experience is with accessibility. Do not, do not simply accept some generic representation that it's 508 compliant, I think Robin, you probably have also seen that slapped on products that it doesn't necessarily tell the employer what you need to know about whether it will actually be accessible to your employees.
If somebody were to, as I guess the questioner is saying, bring a challenge in and of itself to say that having an inaccessible online application system is a violation of the ADA, there is a number of different theories that have been bandied about over the years. I don't know of any case law on this. One theory is that the ADA requires, that all the EEO laws require using neutral selection criteria, and that you can't use selection criteria that have the effect of disproportionately excluding people based on their protected status. So even if unintentional, that this could be a violation of the ADA.
Another theory is that you have to, you can't limit segregate or classify individuals with disabilities under the statute, and that you have to have methods of administration that don't have the effective discrimination, discriminating based on disability. These are provision goes in the statute -- provisions in the statute. They are little used. There is no case law interpreting these provisions of the ADA or entertaining these, where these legal theories have been applied to inaccessible online application systems.
So I guess given that landscape, where it's legally unclear if it's a violation of the ADA, where you encounter an inaccessible web-based application, the thing to do, of course, is to request the applicant is going to have to request reasonable accommodation. And of course, someone could file a charge with EEOC alleging that the system, the inaccessible system in and of itself violates the ADA, and we would have to see how that would come out.
But in addition, in terms of what else you can do, you could request accommodation, and I think the concern, Robin that you said the questioner had was, if I request accommodation, a workaround by phoning the employer and saying I'm a applicant who can't use the online system, can I apply in a different way, that then you have self-identified, and I don't know that there is a way around that. Because you need to request accommodation. If the accommodation request is denied or if the accommodation request is granted but the person isn't hired and they think it was in retaliation for the accommodation request, then they should contact EEOC about filing a charge.
We would look at whether there was some discrimination after the fact, in terms of the system itself, whether there was any viable undue hardship argument just like we would with any other charge, so I mean it's certainly worth filing a charge, and letting EEOC investigate, as to an inaccessible system. A denial of accommodation for a workaround of an inaccessible system, for a non-hire in the wake of accommodation request to work around an inaccessible hiring system. And then EEOC would look into whether or not there were defensible reasons for the employer's setup or the actions that they took.
It's possible I suppose what the questioner is really getting at is the risk that they take by self-identifying or by filing a charge, and that is a decision each person has to make in these circumstances, about what they have to gain or lose by self-identifying and requesting accommodation. More on that from you?
I could go on and on about it, because even one can make a strong argument that even if the employer is going to offer you, in the employee situation, that a alternative that you can meet with HR and review the stuff as an accommodation, it does not provide the same flexibility of 24/7 that I can do it, have online access, privacy to access that information about my pay and things of that nature. There are a lot of arguments to be made.
Right. That it's not effective. Right. I think that would be the claim, if someone were to challenge it. There just is precious little case law one way or the other. Those kinds of claims haven't come to us or to the courts in any kind of large number.
Yeah, I think it's because people feel it's such a power imbalance, a employee, I risk losing my job, I think there are problems there.
But anyway, follow-up, somebody on-line asked, your comment about the vendor situation, the question, is the vendor, the vendor claims the product is compliant and it turns out not to be, is that not -- doesn't the employer have a legal recourse for that?
That is a question of contract law, not of ADA. But I have just heard from so many employers that they mistakenly trusted that representation of 508 compliant or ADA compliant, and it didn't turn out to be true, which is why I now, for sure, think that an employer should, as I said, ask to test it out, ask to talk to other employers who have used it for similar functions, whatever might be necessary to satisfy yourself, or to have some provision in the contract that if it turns out not to be accessible, you are going to be able to get your money back.
Agreed, definitely. Buyer beware. Right?
Right.
Operator, could you please give instructions for those on the phone as to how they can go about asking a question?
At this time, I would like to remind everyone in order to ask a question please press star, then the number 1 on your telephone keypad. We will pause for a moment to compile the Q and A roster.
Reminder, those online, you can submit your questions through the chat area, online we have a few minutes left in regards to answering the questions that were asked in advance. Is anybody queuing in from the telephone, operator?
There are no further questions at this time. Please continue.
I have another question here, that is when requesting accommodation, should an employee go to their supervisor, or to HR or is there a specific process they should be following?
Oh, well, that is very interesting, the ADA itself does not create a specific process. It's up to each employer, if they choose to, to set out a process. Some employers have procedures. Some do not. If your employer has a procedure, you should follow it, in terms of, it might say to start with your supervisor, it might give you options to go to HRO disability program manager who has been designated. But if you are in a situation where the workplace has no reasonable accommodation procedures or process, then go to whoever you feel most comfortable with or who you think is the most logical person. It might be your supervisor or someone in the chain of command. It might be HR. The most important thing is to follow up and make sure that you've, if there is any documentation that is requested, that it's reasonable for the employer to ask that you provide, that you cooperate in that interactive process.
On the flip side, I have seen a couple of cases where employers had a very specific process, it said go to Joe in this office, and then the employee didn't go to Joe, they asked a different manager. And the employer did not act on the accommodation request. The employer was faulted for that, in the subsequent denial of accommodation claim brought under the ADA by the employee, with the court holding that at a minimum, the employer should have directed the employee, provided that information about who to go to. There is a lot of ways that can be handled, maybe the easiest, maybe I shouldn't say easiest, maybe the most secure for the employer in knowing that you don't overlook or drop any accommodation requests, is if you have a particular process, that your managers and supervisors and HR R and a all supervisory employees know that if they receive an accommodation request and they are not the one who is supposed to handle it, that they forward it to the appropriate person, and advise the employee who they have sent it to, as the appropriate person to handle it.
That way, you are not risking that the ball gets dropped or that there is a different recounting of the situation later on, with different recollections of who said what when, as between the employee and the person they asked. You really want to expedite those accommodation requests. You want to make sure they get to the person who is authorized to handle them. You don't want to, as I say sort of stand on ceremony unnecessarily, and risk that the request is not going to be acted on. Robin?
Thank you. Operator, was there anybody else who queued in at all during that period of time?
If you would like to ask a question, please press star and the number 1 on the telephone keypad.
Assuming that means there is nobody. A question in relation to employee benefits. Employers have initiated different types of programs including incentives for engaging in exercise routines, wellness programs, etcetera. How does an employee with a disability who might be precluded from participation in some of those things due to their disability manage this issue with their employer?
That is a great question. A lot of employers do have so-called wellness programs, and they provide incentives for either achieving certain health outcomes or simply participating in a wellness program. There are rules under the ADA that people probably have heard about, if a employer wants to make you go to a medical exam as part of a wellness program, or ask your medical questions, have you fill out a medical questionnaire, health risk assessment, in those cases rules under the ADA apply to make sure that your participation in the program is voluntary, because otherwise the employer would be requiring that you provide that medical information.
And there are rules that EEOC issued on that issue, under the ADA, and they have been disputed in court, there has been a recent ruling holding that they will be vacated as of parts of them, as of June 2019, but -- January, 2019 but they are still in effect for now. On page 4 of my handout, is a list under wellness programs, of the publications we have on this, including a really simple small business fact sheet on employer wellness programs and a free webinar that you can link, the link is there, under, for the rules under the ADA on employer wellness programs.
As to this specific question, you could request accommodation to be able to participate in the wellness program. Robin, I guess the way you posed the question, is kind of general, but a specific example perhaps might be the employer provides a benefit or incentive for an employee, employees who participate in a certain exercise program. And if somebody could not because of their disability participate in that specific type of exercise program, they could request accommodation and the employer might be required to tailor it tailor it to a program that the individual could do within their medical restrictions and still be able to earn the benefit. So accommodation can be a feature of wellness programs even though what everybody heard about in the news is more than that issue that I talked about first about when employers can ask you for medical information, as part of a wellness program. Accommodation can also be a feature, so that folks can participate even if they have a disability. We would look at that the same way we do any accommodation request in terms of whether there is an undue hardship.
Great, thank you. We are at the bottom of the hour here. One of the last questions and I know that you gave an update in the beginning, but of course people always want to know what might be coming in the pipeline or in the future, is there any plans afoot for updating any of the current ADA guidance, and with more of maybe recent case law or anything of that nature, or any new technical assistance documents and materials than what you have already shared?
Okay, well, I can't comment on any specific plans. But in the handout, you will see that a number of these technical assistance publications are just new in the past couple of years. I mentioned the one on PTSD and depression, the one on leave.
So certainly if there are any issues that you encounter, portions of these publications that you wonder if it's still current or you have a question about current developments, you shouldn't hesitate to contact us. My phone number and E-mail is on the bio, that Robin posted. But if you don't have access to that, my phone is 202-663-4693. 202-663-4693.
The attorneys in my office take calls from employers and employees all the time. We can't bind the commission as to a particular case, but we are more than happy to try to direct you to the relevant and current information, so that we can help you resolve whatever issue has come up.
Great. Thank you, Jeanne, people appreciate that. We all know about your strengths in that area. At this time I want to thank Jeanne for her time today and for being willing to answer all of the questions, and to those of you who submitted questions in advance, and to those who submitted questions during the session, thank you very much. I want to remind you, keeping in the vein of Q and A here, we have our June 12, and I want to make note of the fact that this is different than our typical schedule. We normally have our sessions on the third Tuesday of every month. However, in June, on the third Tuesday, we will be, many of us across the country and ADA National Network and hopefully some of you will be at the ADA national symposium in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, so we have moved our typical session in June up one week, and it will be held on June 12. So still a Tuesday, same, time, just one week earlier than we typically do that for scheduling purposes. We invited the Department of Justice to join us for a open question and answer period. We are also taking questions in advance similar to what we did today with the EEOC. If you are registered and have not submitted a question in advance and have one, please go back to the website, log in and under that session, you can add a question, or you can also send us questions by E-mail at webinars @ ADA Great Lakes.org if you are interested in doing that as well.
Thank you very much for your participation today. Thank you, Jeanne, for joining us today and sharing so much great information with people. You will be receiving a E-mail following today's session with an evaluation. We do value your input. Please take some time and give us your feedback, and we will also, it will contain information about how to get certificates of attendance and recording, and things like that. Look for that E-mail as a follow-up. On behalf of the ADA National Network and Great Lakes ADA center, thank you, everyone, and