The ADA's Impact on Your Website: New USDOJ Rules Coming

Well is that a subject you have ever thought about? Not me. But thanks to Adam Santucci of the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog  I have now. Adam reports that the litigation group from their lawfirm published a newsletter discussing The Internet - The Next Frontier for the ADA: Will Your Website Comply?  Writer Kimberly Colonna talks about the U.S. Department of Justice's publication in the Federal Register of a notice soliciting the private sectors input about requiring Americans with Disabilities Act compliance on access to websites. They are asking for public input into the questions they ask about accessibility, not whether or not it is a good thing. They are going to be making rules and enforcing those rules on all websites in the future. So it is important that you prepare.

These accessibility rules are already required for State and Local governments. If you want to review what is required currently you can visit the ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments.  If you would like to read the proposed rules you can go to Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities and Public Accommodations and you can even leave a comment.

According to Colonna, some of the accessability issues identified include:

• websites that do not allow font color and size to be adjusted to accommodate the visually impaired;
• websites that rely heavily on images without captions, such that “screen readers” or other assistive technology cannot read the information aloud to persons who cannot see the images;
• websites that require timed responses from users, but do not provide an option for a user to indicate that more time is needed; and
• CAPTCHAs (Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart), the distorted text that websites may require a user to input before completing a transaction, which may be impossible for a person with a visual impairment. 


This has a human resources impact because lack of accessibility to your website may become an employment discrimination issue. How is a candidate supposed to apply for a position if the website is not accessible to visually impaired individuals. Even with employees who work for you, if they acquire a disability due to accident or health problem, will they have access to your website for purposes of work or obtaining company related information? Something to think about.

And you blog writers. It is something to think about as well. Many of us have the "spam guard" identification measures in place on our comment sections. Will this have to change. (Of course some of us get less comment traffic than others. So for some that may not be an issue.)

So, HR work with your web folks and make sure you can be compliant because the RULES ARE COMING!

An Important Step in the ADAA: The Interactive Process

This post may be a bit "HR geeky", but supposedly I am the "HR technician." I am not really sure about that but if I save someone's fanny from a lawsuit I will be happy. (BTW, nothing I say on this post should be construed to be legal advice. I am NOT an attorney! If I were I would probably have a lot more money than I do. Assuming of course I was a good one.) I did however go and and listen to several attorneys from Freeman, Mathis & Gary in a law update they presented this morning. I paid close attention as they discussed the interactive process required in the ADA Amendments Act when someone is asking for a reasonable accommodation. They mentioned that they are finding this is an area many of their clients are not doing well, and I imagine if that is true for their clients it is probably more widespread.

The key point about the interactive process is that it needs to be truly interactive. A series of emails is probably not going to be sufficient. You need to have a conversation, preferably face-to-face. And because the HR representative holding this discussion is probably not really aware of the job being discussed you need to have someone who knows the job involved with the discussion as well. You need to look at job functions, the job description, and current medical documentation of the employee's condition. The current condition is important because time may have passed from the original situation and physical changes may have occurred (for better or worse.)

The second key point about the interactive process is that it needs to be well documented. You need to have:

• Dates and times communication is attempted.
• Dates and times conversations actually occured and who was involved.
• What options were considered and what was rejected and the reasons why those rejections were made.
• When the employee was notified of the decision and any ensuing discussions that took place.

Once you have done all of that you are not done. The law allows the employee to appeal that decision and to ask you to reconsider your decision and to explore other options. Again this needs to be interactive. You have to show that you were listening and considering. Off-handed rejections or refusal to participate in the interactive process will most likely land you in court.

So for those of you who have not revised your process you need to take a look at your policy, your procedures, and your documentation processes to make sure you are prepared to handle the new demands of the interactive process. This law makes it much easier for people to claim a disability. So good preparatin is important. Good luck.

Ageism, Sexism, Racism: Alive and Well

If you have been watching any of the coverage of the U.S. presidential election you realize that people can get pretty passionate about their choices for candidates. That is one of the things that makes the process interesting. People have differences in how they think taxes, energy, war, employment, unemployment, immigration, natural disasters, the economy and a hundred other issues should be dealt with. And discussion/debate on those issues is healthy. Perhaps better solutions are discovered during that process.

But if you have been paying attention you have also seen an ugly side of the process. Rather than healthy debate we have seen biases bared, biases based on race, sex, age, lifestyle and even disability. Biases, for or against a candidate, are, in my opinion not a healthy way to choose a leader. We have seen these biases early on in the Democrat Party process. People wanting Obama exclusively because he is "black" or wanting Clinton because she is a woman. On the Republican side there has been sexism in the critique in the hairstyle of Palin and in her drive and ambition. Who really cares what a leaders hair looks like? Or in asking whether she could care for her family and be a VP. Asked of any male candidates? Not that I have heard. The personal criticism of McCain hits both disability bias and ageism. I have heard people say he looks funny because of the way he holds his arms. Well that happens when they have been broken and not healed correctly. I have heard others call him that "sad, little old white man" and question whether someone his "age" can lead.

Preferring, or not preferring, a candidate based on color of skin, gender, age, or disability is not the way to select your leader. The thing that distresses me the most about this is all those things I have heard or read have been expressed by people in Human Resources. That line about color of skin, gender, age or disability should sound damn familiar!

In my opinion, if you are in HR and have expressed these points of view then I think you should consider a change of profession. If you are going to let these things sway you in your choice of leadership, then in all likelihood they will sway you in your choice of employees, trainees, promotees and demotees. And that has no place in our profession.

Discrimination in the Workplace: Double Digit Increases

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published a News Release on March 5th detailing the bias claims from 2007 compared to 2006. With one exception, bias claims in all areas saw double digit increases. Here are some of the highlights:

• Race continues to be the largest number of claims, with 30,510 claims, an increase of 12%;
• Retaliation claims had the largest increase, up 18% to 26,663;
• Age discrimination has the second largest percentage increase, up 15%;
• Sex/Gender claims were the only area with a single digit increase of just 7%, however, during FY 2007, pregnancy charges surged to a record high level of 5,587, up 14% from the prior fiscal year’s record of 4,901. Sexual harassment filings increased for the first time since FY 2000, numbering 12,510 – up 4% from the prior fiscal year’s total of 12,025. Additionally, a record 16% of sexual harassment charges were filed by men, up from 9% in the early 1990s.
• Disability claims reached the highest level in 10 years.
• The EEOC recovered $345 million in monetary relief for the charging parties.

So why this increase in activity? Here is my take on some of them:

1. More sexual harassment charges by men- More women bosses?
2. Retaliation charges- Lack of training in companies to reinforce that retaliation is as illegal as the harassment and lack of follow up by HR to insure it is not occurring.
3. Slow down of sex/gender claims- better balance of male/female ratio in the workplace.
4. Disability claims- a greater willingness of the disabled to enter the labor force and a result of an aging workforce as baby boomers age;
5. Age claims- well.... I think everyone probably knows the answer to that one.

What is your take on this? You have any alternative explanations?