Transportation and the ADA: Latest updates, service animals, Q&A Presenter: Marilyn Golden. >> RACHEL: Good afternoon, everybody. And welcome to today's webcast about transportation and the Americans with Disabilities Act. My name is Rachel Kosoy, I'm with the Disability Law Resource Project, your sponsor for today's event. I will be moderating the webcast, and voicing your questions to our presenter. Just before we get started, I want to say something quick about sending in questions today. Today's presenter is a very popular one, and I will introduce her properly in a moment; but let me just say that Marilyn Golden's webcasts are always well attended and we expect many questions. So if you already have a question that you'd like to be asked today, please go ahead and send it in now and that will help the questions keep going and hopefully we can get more answered. In order to submit a question, you have two options. You can look at the bottom of your RealOne Player and there should be a link there to click to submit a question. Additionally, you can simply address a question to webcast@ilru.org. Finally, if anybody has technical difficulties today, you can give us a phone call at (713)520-0232. Okay, today's topic is transportation and the ADA: Latest updates, service animals and plenty of questions and answers. As the fourth webcast in a series looking at service animals, today we will treat service animals and ADA transportation. Please remember that the Americans with Disabilities Act does not include air travel. And so issues about air travel and service animals were covered on our last webcast in the series, and you can access that through our archives. The scope, however, of today's webcast will extend to ADA transportation as a whole, and Marilyn will discuss latest ADA transportation updates since her last webcast which was awhile ago and some of the issues she will address are old lift equipment that frequently breaks down, paratransit late cancellation policies and the ever popular paratransit eligibility. So she will also address accessible taxis today, and of course take questions on any aspect of ADA transportation. So to present our presenter, I would like to welcome Marilyn Golden. She is a policy analyst at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, which we fondly call DREDF. DREDF is a national law and policy center on disabilities civil rights with offices in Berkeley, California and Washington, D. C. Marilyn is a prolific trainer on the ADA, and if you've ever gotten to attend one of her trainings, you know how incredible she is as a trainer. She is the principal author of the DREDF publication, the ADA an implementation guide which is fondly called the bluebook, and I refer to it as the trainees Bible. Ms. Golden was closely involved with the proposal and the passage of the ADA. Since its passage, she has continued to play a key role in federal policy development in the areas of transportation and architectural barriers. She has served on the Access Board since the president of the United States first appointed her in 1996. Marilyn is truly our expert on transportation and I am sure you're going to learn a lot from her today. So let me now go ahead and turn it over to you, Marilyn. >> MARILYN: Rachel, thank you so much for your kind words. It's always fun to do these webcasts and I'm always thrilled to know that there is a lot of people interested in ADA transportation. >> RACHEL: There definitely are. >> MARILYN: Let's see, yeah, in addition to service animals today, I'll talk about some developments in ADA transportation as Rachel said that are new since the last webcast which I gave about a year and a half ago. Some of this will not necessarily be new events, but operational information, information on transit operations that DREDF has found out about that I think can help advocates. I won't be going over basic ADA legal requirements, though people's questions on the legal requirements are perfectly welcome. I want to draw people's attention and your attention has already been drawn through your web work to the materials for this webcast. The basic DREDF transportation outline is there, the DREDF ADA transportation outline which is just a good background on all the substantive requirements in ADA transportation. A lot of times people's questions about ADA transportation is -- are technical questions about vehicles, things about the structure of vehicles and so we also have a link to the regulation -- the standards on vehicles of the U.S. Access Board. And there is a new handout from DREDF on ADA paratransit eligibility that is, again, fairly new. Many people haven't seen it yet if they've been at our trainings, even the last one that we did actually with your shop, Rachel, just a little more than a year ago, it's since then. So that is something we'll look at a lot today. We also have a link to a basic service animal handout from the Department of Justice which applies to ADA transportation. There is also a link to the complaint form for the Federal Transit Administration for any ADA complaints. So there is a link right at the webcast site for any -- any time if you want to make an administrative complaint to FTA because you feel you've been discriminated against in the area of publicly funded transportation. You can use that form. If it's privately funded transportation, such as greyhound or a taxi, you would go to the Department of Justice and their complaint form is on their website. So let's start with the area of service animals. Again, the service animal requirements that affect ADA transportation are really the same that affect all of the ADA in the Department of Justice regulations and many of you may have heard that in previous service animal webcasts, but I know there is a desire to hear about them in any transportation applications that they have, so let me go over them briefly. And I will be loosely following the handout, commonly asked questions about service animals in places of business that is linked for this webcast. Looking at the second question, a service animal is any guide dog, signal dog or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability regardless of whether they've been licensed or certified by anyone. And then a little later on the next question, again, just loosely paraphrasing the important elements, it's not legal to require written documentation as a condition for providing service for providing transportation to an individual accompanied by a service animal. On to the fourth question, the service animal must be permitted to accompany the individual with the disability to all areas of the facility or vehicle where customers or clients are normally allowed to go. Down at the sixth question, it is a violation of the ADA to refuse to admit a service animal on the basis of local health department regulations or any other state or local requirements because the ADA provides greater protection for individuals with disabilities, and so it takes priority over the local or state laws or regulations. Looking at the eighth question, this is something we see a lot. This is a purported or perhaps D. O. J. found a very real occasion where a taxi driver asked -- I operate a private taxicab and I don't want animals in my taxi. They smell, shed hair and sometimes have accidents. Am I violating the ADA if I refuse to pick up someone with a service animal? And the answer is a very clear yes. Taxi companies may not refuse to provide services to people with disabilities. They are also prohibited from charging higher fares or fees for transporting people with disabilities and their service animals than they charge for other people for the same or equivalent service. And on the little later to the tenth question, what if a service animal barks or growls at other people or otherwise acts out of control? The transit agency or provider, privately or publicly funded, by the way, these rules apply to both, are allowed -- these agencies or businesses are allowed to exclude any animals, including a service animal, if that animal's behavior poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others. For example, displaying vicious behavior to anyone, but the transit agency staff are not allowed to make assumptions about how a particular animal might behave based on their past experience with other animals. Each situation, as always in the ADA, must be considered individually. And the last point I want to make in that last question, is it legal to exclude an animal that doesn't really seem dangerous but is disruptive on the bus, say, or on a paratransit van or on a Greyhound bus? And the ADA regulations basically say that there may be a few circumstances when transit operators are not required to accommodate a service animal, if doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the transportation being offered. Generally, this is not likely to occur in public transportation or similar situations, but when it does, the animal can be excluded. I want to address one other service animal question that is unique to transportation, and that is that -- we always get a lot of questions about ambulances, about service animals and ambulances. And we look at that issue by dividing it into two categories: One is when the answer is in use, but not for any emergency-related reason, it's just being used as a form of transportation and it could be a different vehicle. The other one is in an emergency situation, and in DREDF -- the rules would be different. In nonemergency situations the ambulance is simply the type of vehicle being used to provide some type of transportation, such as Medicaid ride or paratransit. In that case, the ambulance service must follow whatever other requirements any vehicle -- any vehicle's use would be required to meet under the very same circumstances by the ADA, including allowing a service animal to be present, including allowing an individual to ride in his or her wheelchair rather than requiring a transfer. People should note, though, that there are a lot of kinds of ambulances, not all of them are wheelchair accessible, nor are they required to be. There are various classifications of ambulances. They vary in size, they vary in how accessible they are, the regulations about them vary by state, from state to state. But if you're traveling on a form of transportation that should allow a service animal, say, for example, on a paratransit ride, then you still have the right to have your animal with you and the transit agency serving you needs to use a vehicle which allows that if you have a service animal. Of course you have to let them know. They can't read your mind to know. Now, there is that other category which I'll go to which is an emergency situation where you're using an ambulance in a truly emergency situation. Then in those cases, the medical emergency nature of the service could take precedence, and DREDF would not necessarily consider it discrimination under the ADA if the vehicle did not carry the service animal or in some cases the other question that comes up about ambulances is not bringing the wheelchair. At least -- I would say we would not necessarily consider it discrimination unless we had further scrutiny of a specific fact of what happened to you, but again, that is only in an actual emergency. In nonemergency usage, your service animal rights on an ambulance are intact. And we're happy to have questions about that during the question period. Let me move on to some other issues I wanted to cover starting with fixed route transportation, which we always like to look at first under the ADA. In many ways something the ADA and I think many of us in the disability community are kind of biased towards really using fixed route. The ADA certainly encourages the use of fixed route transportation on the bus or the train. I want to specifically look at buses with lift that is are old. A lot of older lifts break down a lot and it is alleged by the transit agencies that the equipment is so outdated that that is responsible for the breakdown frequency, especially in harsh weather. Or it's also sometimes stated that because for older lifts it takes a long time to fix them because replacement parts are not available, and this is becoming a problem in part because here we are in 2004. We are just really hitting the period where some of the buses bought because of the ADA in 1990 and 1991 are hitting old age. And this has been coming up and DREDF's interest in this is for people to know what is sometimes really going on with the situation. Of course the basic principle, that's always been part of the ADA, is to view lifts and other accessibility equipment, whether it's a ramp or a kneeler equipment that makes the bus kneel, that equipment is to be viewed as an essential part of the bus that needs to be kept operating and the ADA has maintenance requirements. So the question is, you know, do these old -- I won't go over those, though people are welcome to ask about them, but the question is are these old buses kind of foiling the transit agency's attempt to meet the maintenance requirements? And DREDF's answer is usually not necessarily. Because sometimes the problem is the transit agents keep buses in service far too long and they give priority in allocating available capital dollars to rail systems or other priorities while letting the buses age and get dilapidated. Other times, engines and transmissions will be replaced and there is other, quote-unquote, maintenance of the bus short of full remanufacture and then the lifts on the buses don't get replaced, but they should. If a transit agency decides to keep buses in service beyond the FTA defined 12-year useful life, let me say what I mean by that -- the Federal Transit Administration has defined a 12-year useful life for buses, and the meaning of that number of 12 years is that that's the point at which they become eligible for replacement, drawing on FTA's capital dollars. They don't take care 100 percent of it, but fund if significant funding is available. So if transit agencies decide to keep the buses in service longer than this, they really need to consider replacing the lifts as part of any maintenance or remanufacture. So you want to look to see if these buses are older than 1992 vintage, 12 years older -- 12 years old now, and if they are, you can -- advocates can ask why the lifts are not being replaced as part of the decision to keep the buses in service beyond their useful life. If the reply to your question is that structurally the transit agency cannot put new lifts on these old buses, advocates can ask for this to be documented by an engineering study. So that's some interesting information that DREDF uncovered. Let's see, as our time is moving on, I want to move on to the area of paratransit and cover a couple of things. The first big thing I want to cover is late cancellation policies on paratransit. As many of you, if not all of you are aware, the ADA allows paratransit agencies to establish policies that will sanction -- in effect that will punish -- riders who have a pattern of missing scheduled trips, who reserve paratransit trips and don't show up for them. The slang is no-shows, and they are allowed to establish these no-show policies under certain conditions. Transit agencies are establishing similar policies for late cancellations and there have been some wrinkles with them that we really want advocates to know about and other -- we want to disability community to know about. To set this up, I first want to read a little bit from the Department of Transportation's ADA regulations appendix which is the explanatory writing section at the end of the DOT regulations and it says that's very important to note that sanctions could be imposed only for a pattern or practice of missed trips or I should say a pattern or practice of missed trips. A pattern or practice involves intentional, repeated or regular actions, not isolated, accidental or singular incidents. Moreover, only actions within the control of the individual, the paratransit eligible rider count as a part of pattern or practice, missed trips due to operator error, meaning transit agency error, and are not attributable to the individual passenger. That's what would be part of the pattern. For example, if the vehicle arrives substantially after the scheduled pick up time, and the passenger has given up on the vehicle and taken a taxi, Oregon down the street to talk to a neighbor, that's not a missed trip attributable to the passenger. If the vehicle does not arrive at all or is send to the wrong address or to the wrong entrance to a building, that is also not a missed trip attributable to the passenger. And this regulatory appendix goes on to state even further that there may be other circumstances beyond the individual's control. For example, a sudden turn for the worse in someone's variable condition or a sudden family emergency that may make it impractical for the individual to travel at the scheduled time, and also for the individual to notify the entity, meaning the transit agency, in times to cancel the trip before the vehicle comes. This circumstance -- such a circumstance would also not form part of the sanctionable pattern or practice. So we see that DOT is very clear that it's not just missing a trip that can count towards a suspension of your paratransit eligibility, it really has to be something that's not under the individual's control -- excuse me -- it has to be something that is under the individual's control. This brought about some interest in looking at these policies on DREDF's part because in the spring of last year, in about -- about in the spring of 2003, there was a letter from FTA, from Michael Leonard who is the director of the Office of Civil Rights of FTA to a particular transit agency that directing it to -- in response to a complaint -- directing it to move its stated cancel deadline. It had apparently required people to cancel trips -- I'm moving into the area of late cancellations -- the transit agency had required people, if they're going to cancel a trip, to do it by 5:00 p.m. the day before the trip, and the Office of Civil Rights letter from Michael Leonard asked them to move this deadline to within perhaps two or three hours before the schedule pick up time. And further, to increase from three the number of know-shows a month that can trigger a sanction. And the letter stated to require a person to cancel a day in advance of service does not seem reasonable to us. As for no-shows, three no-shows equal only one and a half round trips in a 30 day period. This also seems somewhat restrictive. DREDF thought that this was a very good letter and we agree very strongly. We view it as very unreasonable, even ridiculous on its face to require a paratransit rider to cancel a ride a day in advance when a rider is not even required to request a ride until a day in advance. If an eligible paratransit rider calls for a right at 4:55:00 p.m. on a Thursday, for a ride at 8:00 a.m. on a Friday, and everybody should be reminded that that is the legal right if you're eligible for paratransit, next day service. If regularly you can't get next day service, that alone is a violation of the ADA, but given that one can do this, call at the end of the business day on Thursday for a morning ride on Friday. How can it be arguable that the latest time you can cancel that ride without punishment is just a few minutes after you make it. So the concept of an allowable cancellation becomes meaningless by these policies. Really, a more reasonable policy -- and this was recommended by a very recommended policy planner, we recommend as he did, an hour or two before the ride as being a reasonable policy. I want to say just a little bit about the history of this so people can see how new it is to have these problems. Prior to the ADA, a no show in paratransit had a very specific meaning. If the vehicle showed up and the person didn't board as scheduled, it was a no show. And expanding the definition of no-shows to include -- well, of course there was an expansion to whose control it was under with the rule that I read in the ADA regulation in '91. And then expanding that to include late cancellations was something that started well after the ADA. At first, late cancellations were typically defined as cans selling less than one or two hours before the scheduled pick up, as we are recommending they be. It's really only been in the last couple of years that the idea of calling anything canceled after 5:00 p.m. the day before as late and thus sanctionable has become something agencies might do. At DREDF, we do hear sometimes of very punitive policies -- by punitive, I meaning allowing very few no-shows or late cancellations before a sanction is imposed, as well as this notion of requiring cancellation by the previous day. In fact, we think that -- we note at least that the regulations don't even address suspensions for cancellations, only for no-shows. Arguably, suspensions due solely to late cancellations, particularly if based on tough cancellation policies such as this previous day policy, are not even legal. Now, DREDF is not saying they are not legal, but we could conjecturing that you could make that argument because, again, it's not even noted in the regulation. And another point that may even be more important is that the regulations also say, as we looked at earlier, that riders should not be penalized for no-shows that are beyond their control, yet transit agencies often don't let riders know they can dispute no-show charges and let riders know that they are allowed to offer reasons why their no-shows occurred. We do feel that suspensions that have taken place without the person having this information are violations of the regulation's due process requirements. The other wrinkle here is given that the regulatory only talks -- when there is a pattern when not isolated or singular incidents, we really think you have to look at the frequency of the no-shows to see if there is really a pattern that's sanctionable. If you travel to and from work five days a week, that's a lot of rides, and if you make a few same day changes a month, that's not really as frequent as another rider who may make fewer rides. For example, let's say you do ride to and from work five days a week, and you make a few same day changes a month, we really question does that rise to the kind of repeated and regular action that the regulations had in mind or is it more properly considered an isolated or singular incident? Very few transit agencies -- there are some -- but very few transit agencies look at the percentage of trips that are missed. Most of the policies are absolute, like three a month or five a month or some number because that's easier to administer, but it would make a real difference if someone traveled every day and missed or late canceled one or two trips a month versus someone who travels once a week or even once every two weeks and they miss or late cancel one or two trips a month. That would be, you know, 50 percent or 75 percent of their trips whereas for the individual that travels every day it would be much lower and we really think the transit agencies need to be looking at this. Before I finish this topic I just want to also mention there are some operational considerations that we want people to know about. Operational meaning things that go on behind the scenes in terms of the how the transit service is administered that can affect this and that might be good for people to know. The first one is when you face -- if you face these kinds of Draconian policies, strict policies, you can ask your transit agency how many of the cancellations are advanced cancellations rather than same day. Very often during the scheduling process, someone will call to change a ride time and if that's considered a cancellation by the system, that's really questionable. The statistics are this: The same day cancellation rate is usually about 5 to 8 percent. And the no-show rate is usually about 3 percent. So that gives people some idea. Another operational point, it's our understanding that when transit system's data is looked at closely and objectively, you find that many cancellations and no-shows are caused by systems which have not kept track of subscription riders' schedules. A lot of times a social service agency will have several people on the schedule, on a subscription basis. There will be changes in their plans and some people will go and others won't, and the agency doesn't keep the transit systems apprised of the changes. Transit agencies can reduce no-shows and cancellations significantly if they work more closely with social service agencies for which they provide subscription service. So there could be a problem in their coordination that is responsible for the problems that promotes these strict policies and a way you can work with your sit agencies is to look at that or to request that or publicize the need for that. Moreover, if there is capacity constraints in the system, we think it's incumbent on transit agencies to take care of those constraints before they implement tough no-show and cancellation policies. Because when they don't, the majority of no-shows and cancellations stem from riders dealing with capacity constraints. For example, if you're being forced to call more days in advance because you know that calling closer to your ride day will result in a denial. You see, this is a very real aspect of the problem that you have to call too early, and your schedule therefore changes more often. This happens so much that we have heard about public meetings where riders will actually testify that they have taken trips they don't need anymore. They just go and hangout at the destination in order to avoid being charged with a late cancellation. This result of course serves no one's interest. It doesn't serve the interests of the rider, it also doesn't serve the interest of the transit agency. Beyond these operational considerations, we try to help transit agencies understand that it is asking people to plan their lives in advance and to stick to their plan rigidly which is something that no one can really do. We have been advised by experienced transit professionals that in practice it isn't a majority of riders who abuse the system. There are typically only a few people who are chronic no-shows -- who have chronic no-shows or who are very frequently canceling late and they are easily identified. So for transit agencies to send threatening letters to the average rider who happened to have an occasional, unexpected change in plans is really not considered best practices in the transit industry by these experts that we've consulted. They -- and we at DREDF really encourage policies that focus on those few people whose behavior creates significant difficulties for the system rather than establishing policies that unnecessarily penalize everybody and are disrespectful to the average rider. Lastly, on this in terms of the due process, we're seeing not that many appeals of no-show suspensions, and even less so on late cancellations, and our concern is that the real reason for this is that, again, riders are not made aware that they have the right to appeal these decisions, and the right -- that they have the right to dispute the no-show and the late cancellation charges. And transit agencies should be informing people of those rights. Let's see, how are we doing on time? I think I want to do another -- at least one other big section that I wanted to transmit to everybody on paratransit, that being on eligibility. And I encourage people to move to that handout that was listed as material for this call, called ADA paratransit eligibility, how to make your case. This handout, which is a new DREDF handout and is available for public distribution was authored by Kevin irrelevant vine, a senior advocate at equip for equality, which is the protection and advocacy agency in Illinois and myself. I'm going to go over the important aspects of this handout and also add some thoughts here and there that aren't specifically in here. This is a step by step document to assist people with disabilities to obtain an accurate and fair ADA paratransit eligibility determination. At the beginning of it, we go over the basic ADA rules relating to eligibility, which you can look at on your own. I'm not going to go over them now. And then we go through some steps that people can go through to maximize their chances of getting an accurate determination. First of all, we really encourage people to collect detailed information and documentation that explains why they are eligible, and important considerations and they are listed under step 1 in the handout is to consider your travel throughout the entire bus or rail system during all seasons of the year and during all areas of your transit agency, not just in your neighborhood or those that you normally use. For example, you may be able to get to the bus stop near your home, but not the one near your workplace or the movie theater or anywhere else you may want to go. So when you apply, you really want to think about your ability to travel with the whole variety of environments you might face all across town as well as any variable conditions that you experience due to your disability. At this point, Rachel, I just want to check with you. There is some noise on my line. Is the sound still okay? >> RACHEL: I'm not hearing noise on the line, but I'll check to see if it's coming across on the Internet and I'll let you know if it is. >> MARILYN: Okay, I think if you don't hear it, it's fine. Okay. Looking at step 2, I look over everything, but we really want to encourage people again to include information when you apply for eligibility that addresses any secondary disabilities you might have. For example, you may be someone who travels using a Walker, and the transit agency will assess your ability to use fixed route given that condition, but don't forget that you may have secondary conditions. For example, you may experience disorientation or you may experience extreme fatigue or you may experience difficulties with balance that are unrelated to that basic condition. So you want to really want to kind of think about your secondary conditions. Then moving on down through the handout, looking at step 3, we talk about some different ways that eligibility is determined by transit agencies. Providers may require in-person interviews with or without functional assessments or tests. I want to talk about this a little bit. DREDF is often asked whether we advise advocates to oppose these things. A lot of transit agencies are moving to changes in their eligibility. They are recertifying everybody. They may be adding in-person assessments, they may be adding functional assessments and we are often asked, you know, should we be opposing this or what is our view of these changes? And we have wrestled with these questions for years. I have wrestled with them in my soul because there is so much -- so many dimensions to it. And at this time, our conclusion is that the most important thing is whether your transit agency is acting consistently with best practices in the transit industry. Again, it's a nationwide trend now for transit agencies to recertify and to change how they are doing things. And sometimes they are instituting a practice which has always been legal under the ADA but they've not done before often. A trip by trip eligibility, often called conditional eligibility, which means that you can be found eligible for every trip, just plain old eligible, or you might be found eligible for no trips at all. That part they've always done, but there is now for some agencies a third category. You may be found eligible for some trips, but not others. It could depend on weather conditions, or it could depend on all kinds of things. DREDF's main concern is that they are doing any of these things, that they do them properly and there is a properly. The National Transit Institute teaches a course on paratransit eligibility, which is very good, and it's free to people from transit agencies, to employees of transit agencies. DREDF's chief concern is that the transit agencies are doing this right and consistent with what is taught in that course and what is considered best practices. For example, we've heard of transit agencies assessing all blind people as not eligible, figuring they can use the bus. This is definitely not best practices. This is the kind of rigid conclusion that ignores that there is all kinds of circumstances that aren't being considered. A few other considerations, moving to the bullets in that handout, if you use a power wheelchair or other mobility device, you want to really think about, and make sure you bring to bear in the evaluation, if your travel is still limited by other factors. For example, lack of sidewalks or safe paths of travel or the heat or the cold. And if a functional assessment is not assessing one of your disabling conditions, you want to mention that, and make sure it's being considered in some other manner. And this is another example of best practices. It's the transit agency's responsibility to know that some disabilities cannot be evaluated by a functional assessment. Functional assessments are designed to evaluate people with mobility impairments, people with visual impairments, and people with cognitive disabilities. Examples of disabilities that cannot be evaluated by functional assessments include seizure disorders, psychiatric disabilities and variable conditions such as multiple sclerosis. And sometimes a transit agency will take somebody with one of these disabilities, put them through their functional assessment that was designed to evaluate a different disability and they of course pass with flying colors. The transit agency says, great, you can use the bus or the train, you're not eligible for paratransit and it's really the transit agency's responsibility to know that they cannot evaluate somebody with a psychiatric disability or a seizure disorder or a variable condition like MS that way. And that's part of best practices. Moving on in the handout, it's great to bring someone to help you if needed to your functional assessment or in-person assessment. We don't say every one has to do that or should do that, but there are occasions when that is helpful. And then we talk about in step 5 how you have the right to appeal if you are denied pair transit eligibility and very often it's a good idea to appeal. And then under step 6, the handout gives a thorough summary of how you can enforce this and all your other ADA rights in publicly funded transportation. So people can read that on their own. I want to comment briefly on FTA and what they've look at with paratransit eligibility. Until now, to our knowledge, the FTA, Federal Transit Administration, which enforces which has been more involved in pursuing violations of the eligibility process. For example, ensuring the transit agency's have a proper appeals process than in second-guessing the actual content of a particular eligibility appeal decision. However, it is very important that FTA hear about problems with eligibility denials, particularly serious problems and patterns. In other words, when the same problem affects more than one person. Eligibility complaints to FTA may be particularly effective if important information was disregarded by the transit agency or if multiple complaints are submitted by several people against the same transit agency; especially if they're submitted together. So we do encourage people to take serious and important eligibility ADA violations to FTA, particularly in patterns, but also individually. And if you know of a particularly problematic practice that's happening, it's important to complain and you're welcome to let DREDF know about it, too. Although we would -- we expect that FTA will not want to look closely at it if the eligibility denial has not been appealed. So people should go through their local appeal process first. In a handout we have tried make a distinction as best we can about what kinds of issues are good to send to FTA, so we encourage you to look at that on your own. It may not be appropriate to make FTA be basically the second level of appeal for every eligibility decision in the country. So you can look at those descriptions and see if you think your issue meets that and, you know, as always is true with the ADA, while on the one hand we're not asking FTA to be the second level of appeal for every eligibility denial in the country, we also feel strongly that it is very important under the ADA for people to file complaints. If it doesn't go anywhere, you haven't lost anything, but a lot of times people hesitate to file complaints and there really is no good reason to hesitate in general to file complaints under the ADA. It's easy to do. It's free, and it makes important changes. So people should not hesitate to utilize their enforcement rights. One quick point I want to make just about our handout is that the U. R. L.'s we give in the handout for FTA documents have been changed. The web addresses have been changed by FTA since we wrote the handout, and in particular, the web address for the FTA ADA complaint form is not correct if your handout, but DLRP has corrected that and has posted that complaint form on the website for this webcast. So thanks for their quick work and it is up. So look for that complaint form there. Okay, that is basically what I wanted to say about paratransit eligibility. I think I will move on to the taxi issue, talk just a little bit more about that and then open it up for questions. And I have a couple of other interesting things on paratransit to share with you, but maybe -- it may be that they come up during the question period. So let me talk a little bit about accessible taxis. As many, if not all of you know, the ADA does not require taxicabs to be wheelchair accessible unless vans are used. In which case, many of the post ADA new vans would be required to be accessible. Though using vans for taxi service is rare, in at least one location in Salt Lake city, there is litigation now over an accessible taxi vans, but generally the ADA does not help us with requiring accessible taxis, and the lack of accessible taxis is a significant problem in most U.S. cities. It's a very hot topic now and there a lot of places where people are working on getting requirements for accessible taxis, locally or at the state level. I just want to give you some examples so people can have a sense of the variety of approaches that are being used. Boston's experience is instructive. As I understand it, there had been a desire at one point for more medallions, that is more entitlements to be given out to operate more taxis in Boston. They do a lottery for medallions. The government entity that regulates taxis in Boston is the police department, and they placed a requirement that out of 100 new medallions that they were going to issue, some 30 or 40 had to be accessible. They were requiring this to be the case even if the owner in question that won the lottery only had one taxi. So that's a very interesting approach. At least a couple of cities are purchasing or considering the purchase of London cabs -- these vehicles which are used as taxis in London which are largely wheelchair accessible. In Chicago, there has been disputes between various agencies over this approach because the London cabs have a couple of accessibility problems even though most wheelchair users can use them. So London cabs is an option with some positive, but perhaps some negatives as well. Another method in some places is for the transit agencies to contract with taxi companies for some of their paratransit rides. That part is not unusual, but some locales have taken it further. The transit agency requires as a condition of the contract accessible taxis, and further requires the taxi companies to use the accessible taxis for normal taxi service part of the time. This shows something else interesting that in some locations, the transit agencies themselves have realized what a stake they have in there being accessible taxis, because it will serve some of the demand for paratransit. Taxis may be more expensive than paratransit, but some paratransit riders who can afford taxis will certainly take them since it can be arranged fairly quickly in realtime, not one or even more days in advance. So accessible taxis are a plus in the eyes of transit as well. My understanding is that one reason like cities like Portland and Seattle have accessible taxis is the role played by some transit agency people in bringing about local requirements. That's the basic points I wanted to make. So, Rachel, should we look at some of the questions? >> RACHEL: Sure. That's all, Marilyn? Only an hour. >> MARILYN: I held back. >> RACHEL: Okay, we have some -- a number of kind of specific questions, but I have to ask you this general one first because I really love it. It starts out, I don't understand. It says people without disabilities are never told, sorry, the bus isn't running today. Maybe you can go to work tomorrow instead. Why can't cities be forced to provide adequate paratransit service? >> MARILYN: This is, of course, a great question. And there is a lot of different reasons -- different kinds of reasons because first of all cities can be forced to some degree to provide better paratransit service, but the questioner raised one thing which is the same day/next day issue. So let's talk about that first. It is legal, under the ADA to require next day service to not require transit agencies to give you same day paratransit. Although it's an option and it's something that was done for a very long time in Los Angeles, it was a really interesting realtime system that was run there for a number of years. The ADA, you know, is not a document that was written just by people with disabilities to get whatever the disability community wanted, but was really a battle in Congress to get a good, strong law and also a battle with the administration at that time to put up good strong regulations, and the disability community urged that there be same day paratransit, but the Department of Transportation chose to allow next day service being the shortest that was required because in their view it was a legitimate balance between the needs of people with disabilities and the costs of providing paratransit. It is true that paratransit is an expensive service to provide. We at DREDF certainly wish they had required same day service, but they didn't. But I think it's important to know that a lot of times when people are having significant difficulties with paratransit, it's not only because of the kind of dynamic I just described, which is that the transit agency is allowed under the ADA to do what they are doing, there may be many other aspects besides the next day aspect that are not consistent with the ADA regulations. And so it's important for people to learn about all the paratransit rules and to -- some of them are -- many of them, not in huge detail, but to some degree are described in the DREDF outline that is one of your materials on the web for this webcast. DREDF has further materials that describe more that can be purchased and we also love doing trainings. You can call us about doing trainings. We don't do whole trainings that individuals can come to as an individual. We don't have -- we don't have the financial support for that, but we're eager to work with organizations that can pay us a fee to do trainings and those organizations certainly can open them to the public and there is all kinds of ways to educate yourself not involving DREDF. We encourage you to do that. Your DBTACs have good information. We encourage you what other ways, Rachel -- there is a lot of ways for people -- a lot of good materials on the web also that you can educate yourself on and -- >> RACHEL: Yeah, there are, and there are some other organizations, too, that focus on this. The Easter seals program -- >> MARILYN: Project action has good information. You can look it up on the web and you may even want to post -- in that training we did we searched all kinds of other resources on transportation. >> RACHEL: Yeah, I'll put up some additional resources when we archive this. That's a good idea. >> MARILYN: We made a good document after that last training that gave good resources. And we encourage people to learn about their rights and really act on those rights in various ways with the transit agency to bring about conditions that are better and that comply with the ADA. The ADA -- you know, we don't see perfection in those rules. They are very civil rights minded in the sense that they require not in the next day, but in a lot of other ways exactly what everyone else gets on pair transit and of course there is the famous quote, I'll say it, maybe not everybody on this webcast has heard it, that the ADA gives people with disabilities access to the same lousy mass transit as everyone else. Meaning -- I of course deleted the expletives on that -- >> RACHEL: This is a family show. >> MARILYN: This is a family webcast. I'm sure lots of children would love to hear it, it's so fascinating. Hopefully all the ADA transportation people have stayed on. Anyway, we don't have perfect transportation under the ADA. A lot of times we're given by the ADA exactly what bus riders get and when it gets worse than that, it's often a violation of the ADA, not in the next day area, but in many other respects. >> RACHEL: Okay. Well, I think that was helpful and answered as much as it can be answered. Okay, I have a couple of ambulance-related follow-up questions. Okay, one is are ambulances required to do something with a service animal as a reasonable accommodation -- it sound like their situation has to do with where it is an emergency ride and the animal is not taken. Do they need to a range for the service animal to be taken to a safe place or taken to the hospital to be joined with the person? >> MARILYN: DREDF is not prepared to lay down a flat answer to that. We're not prepared to say it's a violation of the ADA when in an emergency situation a service animal is not accommodated in any of the ways that have been stated. I'm not saying it's not illegal, but I think we would just want to look more at the individual situation. I think the overwhelming percentage of ambulance rides that people are asking about are nonemergency rides, you know, 99 percent or something. Obviously that's speculation, but ambulances are used a lot in public transit. If an ambulance is used to get you to the doctor, you know, that was an appointment, that's not considered emergency transportation and your ADA rights are intact. I'm not -- >> RACHEL: It sounds like some of the questions come when people with disabilities -- you know, they have a' seizure attack or something and it's not anticipated and then an ambulance is called. And so it might not be -- it might be a case where somebody needs to get to the hospital, but it's not an emergency like if we don't get them there in a minute, you know, then the person won't survive. That's my sense of some of these questions, which basically just puts you in a gray area. I mean, one of the questions is, how do you define emergency with an ambulance? >> MARILYN: Yes, and I don't have an answer for that other than a common sense definition. The ADA does not give us a guidance here. So I don't know that I can say a lot more than I've already said. I wish I had a magic answer to the emergency situation. >> RACHEL: Right. Okay, let me throw in the last ambulance question I have. And it's sort of a good tie-up question here. It's basically asking how should people who use service animals advocate when it's appropriate to have their service animals taken in the ambulance? Can you holdup a certain segment of the regulations or is there some official document that they can use that demonstrates their rights? >> MARILYN: Well, the basic service -- your basic service animal rights are the ones that are involved here. So I think D. O. J.'s handout, the Department of Justice handout about important questions about service animals and places of business. Now, that does say in places of business -- you know, DOT does not have a document that specifically talks about service animals in transportation that I can think of. >> RACHEL: I can't either. >> MARILYN: So I can't -- I can't give you -- I can't give you that, but it is true, the transportation providers, public transit providers are absolutely covered by the Department of Justice Title II regulation. And your advocacy techniques -- there is just such a panoply of them. >> RACHEL: It sounds like that document -- that the person sending the question really wanted to know what document to carry around with them. So it sounds like that D. O. J. document is probably the best one. >> MARILYN: and it's a good idea that we -- you know, if DOT -- if there is a lot of interest from people with disabilities in a document like that, the FTA Office of Civil Rights might be responsive to people's urgings to -- for them to put one out. If people feel they want that, you are encouraged to contact the FTA Office of Civil Rights and to -- you could do it in the form of a complaint. You can write a letter, but I think that office, you know, there is good reason to not hesitate to contact them personally. You know, you could write the director of the Office of Civil Rights. I mentioned him earlier, and if I get time I want to talk about a couple of other recent determinations they've made which show that they are making some very good determinations these days, and I know that they are trying very hard to reduce the amount of time it takes to respond to complaints, which in the past was much worse. So I'm certainly not saying that every letter gets -- you know, you can snap your fingers and it will happen. I don't know that that can be said of any agency, but I think people should be encouraged to express those wishes for things like that. >> RACHEL: I'm going to ask a couple more questions and then actually let you review those rulings that you're talking about. Because a lot of the -- and then I'll throw in some more questions, but a lot of the questions coming in are actually things you have covered as you've been speaking. >> MARILYN: Okay. >> RACHEL: Okay, this next question is about a passenger who uses paratransit, typically is picked up in a van. Because of medical reasons is unable to wear a seat belt, however, the Transit Authority requires people to wear seat belts in the van. So what's the situation here? Do they have to accommodate this person by letting them not wear a seat belt or do they have to send them a car instead of a van or where do they go from here? >> MARILYN: Let me clarify that. You're saying that the individual has a specific disability-related reason that counter indicating wearing a seat belt? >> RACHEL: Yes. >> MARILYN: Not a shoulder restraint, but a seat belt? >> RACHEL: Goodness, it doesn't specify. >> MARILYN: That's what this says. Generally speaking, my understanding has been that most of the problems are more related to shoulder harnesses and shoulder restraints. It's true that the basic rules on seat belts in the Department of Transportation regulation are that the transit agencies can require of people with disabilities what they require of all other passengers, and if other passengers are required to use seat belts, people with disabilities -- riders with disabilities can be required to do it, too. And it should also be mentioned -- and I'm just going over the basic rules, but then I think there is something that can help the individual that I'll say. But another basic principle that people should know, and this is something that we haven't really seen in these documents particularly, but that is true, and people that use securements have an intuitive sense of it, is that wheelchair securements and things like seat belts are more important for individual safety in smaller vehicles like vans than they are in larger vehicles like buses because of the physics involved, the physics of those vehicles and their speeds and so forth. It's understandable, at least, that a transit agency may be stricter and often they are stricter on things like tie downs and seat belts on vans than they are on buses. If an individual, though, has a very particular reason why it's a problem for them related to their disability, remember that they are required to also follow the Department of Justice Title II regulation which gives a lot of general nondiscrimination rules that are not specific to transportation, but would apply to any program operated with public funds, whether it's a city or a state, everything from courts to recreation, anything a government funded agency does, and one of those rules in the Department of Justice Title II regulation is that it is a requirement that the government -- that a state or local government funded program make reasonable modifications of policies, practices and procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination against a person with a disability unless they can show that modifying the policy, practice or procedure would fundamentally alter the nature of the service being provided. And that requirement to modify policies, practices and procedures could come into play here. If an individual has a disability-related reason to not use the seat belt, and if the transit agency requires it and if the transit agency would therefore deny the ride to the individual, if they refused to use the seat belt that, is discrimination and to avoid the discrimination, they would have to modify their policy for that individual, I think in such a situation it's not a fundamental alteration of the service being provided. They may argue it is, DREDF does not think so, and they can make use of that requirement in the Title II regulation to modify policies, practices or procedures unless it would fundamentally alter the nature of the service. >> RACHEL: Is there anything about direct threat that plays in here? >> MARILYN: Well, it's true that the transit agency might argue -- that's a good point to raise because it's an argument that they might make. The transit agency might argue that they don't have to modify in situations where it would be a direct threat to other people. In Title II, a direct threat to self is not as much of an issue and it gets complicated because you can argue that under another provision called eligibility criteria, the dangers or the safety issue does come up again. So it's true that they can make the argument and it's true that sometimes they can prevail in that argument, but to make a safety argument, whether it's under the direct threat part of Title II or under the eligibility criteria part of Title II and I'll just say what that is -- say the local government program is not allowed to screen out people with disabilities due to the disability from services that they offer unless doing so is necessary to operate the program; but any of those safety arguments do require a significant risk of substantial harm. Those are the words from Title I, from the direct threat in Title I, but the burden of proof, if you will, or the strength of the requirement -- D. O. J. has stated that it's the same. It's equal. It has to really be a risk -- it virtually reaches the point of being likely, and I doubt that the transit agencies can show that the statistics are that if a particular individual that does not wear a seat belt, particularly if it's not a wheelchair not being secured, that's more of an issue, because to not secure a wheelchair, just going around a corner can be disruptive in a van, but a seat belt -- it's just like any passenger with a seat belt. While we all know that seat belts save lives, what are the statistics that in an individual ride -- I don't think a direct threat is a good valid legal objection to that. The other point I wanted to make is that any time someone is using a protection from the Department of Justice Title II regulation, like the one I described about modification of policy or eligibility criteria, in particular transit agencies may not be aware of their responsibilities to comply with the Department of Justice Title II rule because transit agencies -- at least the people running these agencies, the higher ups -- the bus driver may not know the letter of the ADA regulations, but someone in the transit agency, you would think, and I think is likely -- someone there will know about the DOT, Department of Transportation regulations, but they will not be aware that they are also covered by the Department of Justice regulations. So sometimes people have an uphill climb convincing the transit agencies that they are covered by this, but they are. >> RACHEL: I have two more questions I want to try to get in quickly. One is can you please review the visitor ride requirement for out of area rider -- basically paratransit visitor eligibility. >> MARILYN: Sure. Sure. Paratransit -- first of all, it's important to note because a lot of times transit agencies may not even be aware or the people that you call, the dispatchers may not be aware, that it is true that visitors who have not gone through the standard eligibility determination process are legally entitled to use paratransit in a different location. Let's see which part of this -- if their disability is apparent, and if they can present evidence that they reside elsewhere, the paratransit agency is required to allow them to ride without any documentation of disability. And if the disability is not apparent, the transit agency is allowed to require documentation of disability as well documentation that they reside elsewhere, and they are allowed to ride for 21 days before the transit agency can say now you have to be certified eligible locally. That 21 days -- the significance of that is that 21 days is how long the transit agency has to determine eligibility to begin with. So if you're going to be somewhere for two months on a work detail or something in another city, and you're going to want to use pair transit that whole time, you should apply for ordinary eligibility as soon as you get to the place and by the time your visitor eligibility has expired, your standard eligibility should have kicked in. At one point after the original ADA regulation, there was a small regulation change where the Department of Transportation stated that 21 days for visitor eligibility is 21 days per year because it was just so hard to administer if it was 21 days forever. So it's actually made it a little more lenient in a sense or after that change it gave greater rights to people with disabilities who could get 21 days of visitor eligibility every year. >> RACHEL: Okay. Actually that's really good to know that you ended up saying that because we've gotten this question a number of times. And I don't think it's widely known that even if you haven't gone -- even if you haven't gone through a disability determination and you have a paratransit eligibility at home, that you can still ride this another city. >> MARILYN: That's true. It's not well known enough. >> RACHEL: All right, I have a couple of questions about taxis that are pretty close so if I can pair a phrase. Basically, there is interest to know how many accessible taxis have to be available and kind of part of that is if there are new vehicles coming in, do some of them have to be accessible? >> MARILYN: Well, those are good questions because it's very important to clarify that the ADA does not require accessible taxis unless they are vans. And let me talk about vans in a minute. Let me first talk about the issue of regular cars or sedans. Most taxis are sedan R or cars. The ADA does not require that taxis -- sedan taxis, which is the overwhelming majority of taxis be wheelchair accessible. Since accessible taxis are so important to have, that has spawned so much interest in people locally or at the state level trying to get their to be accessible taxis. In some nonADA way, like requiring what Boston did about the medallions that I talked about earlier or getting the transit agency to encourage there to be accessible taxis about another example that I gave or I mentioned that some cities are trying to get London cabs. There is a lot of activity, but it's not related to the ADA. The ADA does not require it. So it does not require new taxis to be accessible or existing taxis to be accessible. Again, I'm talking about sedan taxis, and it doesn't require a specific number, so people should not be under the miss impression that the ADA requires accessible sedan taxis in any way. This is a problem -- a big problem in the ADA. >> RACHEL: Sorry, go ahead. >> MARILYN: and I just wanted to mention the van requirements -- this is the one way in which the ADA itself does require accessible taxis. If taxi service is being provided by vans where you live, you know, multiple passenger vans, then it may be required because the ADA does require van service provided by private companies to be accessible and the rules are new vans have to be accessible, new from when? From when the ADA became effective, so back in '91, so new vans since then. I should look very closely, because that particular wrinkle might be '92. Anyway, it's certainly at least 12 years. And this lesson is you should look things up every day. Do you find that to be true, Rachel? >> RACHEL: No, I've got the whole thing down pat. >> MARILYN: Yeah, she Ian amazing trainer, too. >> RACHEL: I'm glad I can always refer to your material about the numbers and the dates for transportation and the public versus the private, the primarily in business, the not primarily -- it's complicated. >> MARILYN: That's our favorite chart, isn't it. I was thinking that you train without notes there for a minute. I was going to get real jealous and it would make my luggage lighter. >> RACHEL: With the vans, actually one of the questions here is that there is a new taxi company in this town and they are using minivans. So basically you're saying that -- she basically wants to know is there a requirement that a certain number of them be accessible? And it sounds like -- actually that if these are all new vans, then do all of them have to be accessible? >> MARILYN: No -- yeah, I was going to finish. The van requirements are that -- first of all, the basic -- okay, taxis are a demand response form of transportation which as opposed to fixed route. Fixed route or like the regular bus, it goes on affixed schedule and you don't have to make an arrangement to make it come, whereas taxis you have to flag one down or make a phone call or something like that to get a taxi. That's demand response. If taxis were fixed route all new taxis would have to be accessible. But in the case of demand response, they have to provide equivalency, and they have to have enough accessible vans -- let's say a taxi company, just for simplicity, this doesn't usually happen, for simplicity for explanation, let's say a taxi company uses nothing but vans. They would have to -- then any new van -- then the new van they bought after the ADA became effective would have to be accessible and each time they buy a new one, it would have to be accessible unless they can show that the number of accessible vehicles they already have will provide equivalent service to people with disabilities as anyone else gets. So let's say they have 10 vehicles, and 8 are not accessible and the two new ones are accessible. And they are going on get another one. The question is does it have to be accessible? Well, if they can show that with their two accessible vans, they can pick up any person with a disability who needs an accessible vehicle who calls to get one in the same amount of time as anyone else or, you know, to give as equally good service as well. There is a list of criteria. So, for example, if it takes your nondisabled neighbor 20 minutes to get a taxi, then it would have to take you 20 minutes to get a taxi. And if it doesn't, and it takes you an hour to get the taxi because those two vehicles are already -- always being used is somewhere, then their next vehicle would have to be accessible. That's the test. >> RACHEL: Okay. >> MARILYN: and you know, even the few places that have vans for taxis really don't get that this is required. But it is clear in the ADA. >> RACHEL: Okay. I'm watching the clock and we're just about out of time. I want to ask you -- we did get an Amtrak question which I think is fairly simple. So let me see if I can just ask you that. Basically, the person wants to know if these two things are true: One, that only people using canes, wheelchairs, walkers, are entitled to reserve the accessible seating on a nonreserved coach? And the second one is, is it true that it's at the discretion of the people at the station that if the person with the disability has researched an accessible seat, but somebody else shows up who appears more disabled, that the seat must be given over to the second person? >> MARILYN: (Laughter) Amtrak -- okay. >> RACHEL: Don't get me started. Really, we have like six minutes left. >> MARILYN: Well, this actually isn't long. Amtrak does a great job in serving the most obvious and frequently Amtrak riding, you know, disabilities, but they really have problems when -- you know, when there is anything that's the least bit unusual. Certainly anybody with a disability whose disability -- who due to their disability needs it should be able to reserve all of those accessible seating options, absolutely. And I don't think that's in dispute. And it's certainly not up to any local anything. So it should be required, and if they don't do it, I would encourage the individual to make use of his or her enforcement rights. >> RACHEL: Okay. Okay, another thing -- can you explain what complimentary service is? >> MARILYN: Well, that term is usually used in terms of paratransit and it means -- it stems from the ADA's requirement that paratransit is a complement to fixed route service. Fixed route service -- the basic train and bus public transit service available to the general public is the basic service favored in the eyes of the ADA, but people who can't use it are entitled to paratransit service which must be provided as a complement to fixed route service. It's sometimes called ADA complementary paratransit service. >> RACHEL: Okay, the question here was complementary service and this person just wants to confirm that the regular service also has to add here to the ADA. Apparently we have a county that's claiming it doesn't have to because their paratransit or their complementary service takes care of things for people with disabilities. >> MARILYN: Oh, the fixed route service -- absolutely -- has to adhere to the ADA, no question about that. And there is a lot of rules for that. >> RACHEL: Okay. All right, well, we just have a few minutes left. Why don't I see if there is anything that you want to add or emphasize before I sign us off. >> MARILYN: Well, I'll mention a very recent decision. The FTA letter concluded that where on affixed route bus a transit agency has a systemic problem with the calling out of bus stops and therefore a low rate of doing so. An individual with a disability who needs the stops called in order to use the bus, for example, somebody with a visual or cognitive disability must be given paratransit eligibility. Again, a failure to call out bus stops in compliance with the ADA can trigger paratransit eligibility for someone who could otherwise use the fixed route service. I thought that was a very helpful and interesting ruling. >> RACHEL: That is interesting. Though of course now their travel might be even more complicated, you know, as opposed to requiring that the transportation service fix it's problem. >> MARILYN: That is true, and paratransit isn't as good as fixed route, but I think the point of the letter is saying to the transit agency who was denying eligibility to blind people who were applying because they weren't calling out the bus stops, basically maybe growling at the transit agency saying hey if you don't get your act together on calling out the bus stops, you have to give these people pair transit eligibility. That's part of what I thought this letter was saying. >> RACHEL: It is really interesting. Okay. Well we have two minutes left. So I really want to thank you, Marilyn. You as always have covered an incredible amount of material in a very short time and you always do it very clearly. And I know from people listening that this was a lot of -- a lot of different issues that we touched on and that there is a lot more to learn in the handouts that Marilyn carefully picked out for today. So today's webcast will be archived. You can go back and you will be able to listen to the conversation again. You will be able to read the transcript and of course you will have access to the handouts as well as an additional resource page that I will put up on the archive page probably next week. So again, Marilyn, thank you so much. I'm always excited when we get to work together and I always learn more and more from you. >> MARILYN: It was a real pleasure, Rachel, and people should all know that Rachel is an incredible trainer, too. >> RACHEL: a little mutual admiration society. So I also would like to thank some other people who have made today possible. Here at ILRU I'd like to acknowledge Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, Dawn Heinsohn and Vinh Nguyen. We also have on our team Rob Dickehuth and Marie Bryant, who is our realtime captioner, and Marie, I'm sorry, I forgot to keep up if we were going slowly enough because I was very engrossed in the conversation. And for -- lastly, I would like to acknowledge NIDRR who funds the host for today's program. And your host again is the Disability Law Resource Project. We are one of the ten DBTACs or ADA education centers, and we hope that you will check back with us. We have many more webcasts as well as other resources to share with you, and I'm glad you all were with us today. So have a great afternoon and we hope to connect with you again soon. Bye-bye.