DEAF WORKERS OF ORANGE COUNTY PROJECT -- DEAF WORKERS WEEKLY BULLETIN -- May 22, 199 Greetings, I was invited last Thursday to provide information to panel studying ineffective disability support services inside California. I submitted a resolution that may help disability support organization improve communications with their members and am working on another resolution to reaffirm support of legislation that will help people on SSI and SSDI return to work. This piece of legislation is being stalled by Republican leader Senator Trent Lott. Richard Roehm ---- HOSPITAL CLEARED IN BIAS LAWSUIT By JENNIFER VAN DOREN Staff Writer A civil jury in Passaic County found Wednesday that St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Paterson did not discriminate against an elderly deaf patient when it did not provide a sign-language interpreter. The family of Leon Potoczak, who died at St. Joseph's in 1996, sued saying that although he received effective treatment for problems ranging from kidney stones to open-heart surgery, the lack of an interpreter added unnecessarily to his confusion and their distress. They also claimed it violated anti-discrimination laws. The lawyer for the family argued that, even though Potoczak's adult children knew some sign language, they were not emotionally capable or technically skilled enough to handle the job. "It's great to say that you have a policy, but it means nothing if you don't follow it," Clara Smit said in her closing argument Wednesday morning. "This hospital never offered an interpreter to Leon Potoczak although it is obligated to do so." The hospital's attorney argued that Potoczak wanted his children to interpret for him and that there was no hard evidence to show that requests were made. "They never abandoned him medically or from a communication standpoint," Robert Baum said in his closing. "Now that we can't ask him what he wanted, the plaintiffs want to get paid." After the verdicts were read, lawyers on both sides left the Paterson courthouse without commenting. The eight-member jury deliberated for less than three hours on the case, which began three weeks ago. One of Potoczak's two daughters, Shirley Hall, angrily took issue with Baum's insinuation that the family was out for money, and said she thought the verdicts were unfair. "I think it stinks," Hall said, her voice quavering. "How can they say that they provided service for my father?" Seven jurors voted that Potoczak had been given adequate accommodation so he could participate in his medical treatment, and one said he was not. But when jurors were individually polled, two changed their votes -- including the one who had voted against the hospital and another who changed to support the family. With two jurors flip-flopping their votes, the final tally remained the necessary 7-1 to deliver a verdict. None of the jurors could be reached for comment. Jurors were unanimous in their finding that Potoczak's three adult children were allowed to participate in their father's medical care. Baum argued that none of the plaintiffs could give the specific name of someone they had asked for an interpreter. He also said it was unreasonable to believe that Potoczak would have wanted "a stranger" to explain his medical condition, rather than his children. Baum argued that it was ridiculous to believe that the family complained to every nurse, doctor, and technician on every shift for every day. "Do you really believe that they asked some 54 people over two admissions and never even got a response?" Baum said. "If they felt that their father needed an interpreter and they were being ignored, they would have done something." Smit is a deaf-rights law advocate who has filed similar suits against almost two dozen other New Jersey hospitals and won settlements in three cases. She argued that the obligation to provide an interpreter lies with the hospital. She also said her experts testified that Potoczak needed to communicate through sign language -- not written notes as hospital doctors said they used. She said it was just as ridiculous to assume that Potoczak's children made up all the allegations. Rather, the family pursued the suit because "they want his life and death to mean something," she told the jury. USA-L News ---- WHERE IS JUSTICE FOR DEAF IN WORKPLACE?                                     by Paul J. Kiel   My story is about working and facing discrimination throughout employment at Select Artificials in St. Louis, Missouri. There seem to be no justice for the deaf from the decision rendered by the 8th District Court of Appeals.   (I tried to seek justice, but the federal judges ignored facts of A D A violations and supported the employer. I am considering taking the case to Supreme Court. I am strapped of funds now to cover legal expenses so if you are interested in helping financially, please let me know. I only need $1,500 dollars within the next ten days (by May 23, 1999). The filing fee at Supreme Court is $300.00 and the special printing of briefs to file with Supreme Court runs between $800.00 to $1,200.00. The legal bills have accumulated as much as seven to ten thousand dollars.)   During the last week of December 1991, I got a message from the Job Service about job possibility at a company that needs a billing clerk. With my strong background in billing, I thought my chances of landing that job would be good. I had an appointment on or about January 7, 1992. I was told they have history of hiring the deaf.   At the interview, there was no interpreter provided and I was not sure what to do. I had to swallow a bitter pill by going along with the owners of the company in order to get the job.   We had to communicate by notes and gestures and speechreading. I arrived on time and was told to sit in the seating area until the owner named Mr. John Robert Fry would come for me. He came forward.   He motioned me to come into the office with his wife, Julie.   During the interview, they asked questions by notes and I replied in writing and some verbally.   I saw the pictures of Republican people such as Bob Dole, Kit Bond and various politicians. I told Mr. Fry that my father is very active in that group and I have picture of Bob Dole with my dad.   He seemed pleased. They asked me to start working on January 20, 1992. I accepted and was told to take a "training" with Mrs. Fry on Saturday, January 18th.   On January 18th, I showed up for work.   Mrs. Fry motioned me to the desk where I would be working. She brought in papers and boxes to indicate what kind of work is involved.   She turned on the computer and displayed various softwares to be used in getting the program to take care of billing needs for the company. It was frustrating trying to understand what Julie was talking about as there was no interpreter and she did write notes to indicate procedures and what to do next at each step from the start to finish. She made me do some work after showing me some procedures. I got lost as there was no clarification on what to do and she shouted at me for not doing it right. She would get pissed off if I make mistakes.   I was taken aback by that and was kind of confused. I had to swallow bitter pill by tolerating that situation. I personally do not think oralism is paying off in this case. Finally later in the day, the training was over. I was relieved and eager to go home. They told me to show up on Monday.   Then Monday, January 20, 1992 I showed up for the first day at work. I was excited to start a paying job and do the kind of work I am so used to.   Mr. Fry took me around the warehouse and the company to meet all people who are involved in various areas of the company from sales to shipping.   In the warehouse, I saw two deaf ladies working. I was excited to know there is deaf people that I could socialize with during breaks and lunch.   Unfortunately, we had different times for lunch and breaks. I had to request time off to match with Ruth Sullivan and got approved. I understood that Ruth worked so many years at the company. I was interested in knowing how she fared with the company. She said it was difficult working for the owners.   Months passed into summer. I found out that the company had been ignoring the rights of the Deaf.   Whenever they have meetings, they only wrote notes and told them in a few words what was going on. I asked Ruth if she ever asked for tty at work. She said that Mr. Fry said no. So I asked them if I could bring mine so they could consider buying one. I tried to tell Mrs. Fry that I could make business phone calls. She said not to as she wants Terri Fritz , the supervisor to handle the calls and she did not want to hurt her feelings by taking away the duty of making phone calls for me. I was lost as I thought it was a clear discrimination.   During the Holiday Season, the Frys had an open house with all the employees. They had meeting and discussed some issues. They did not bother to bring interpreters to accomodate the three deaf adults working at the company. They acted as if everything is ok . I was wondering how much tolerance I should have with the way they were treating us.   Spring of 1993 - I showed the book about ADA to Mr and Mrs Fry in order to try to see if they will be willing to do those things to help the deaf workers have equal access.   They did not care and told us to get back to work. I felt intimidated by the situation.   I tried to analyze the situation and tried to find solutions. It was hard enough trying to keep the issue worked out at a low profile. I thought of contacting outside agencies to help , but I feared some kind of reprisal from the owners. I did contact some interpreting agencies and they were unable to do some kind of sensitivity training due to legal ramifications. There was no active Deaf group involved in providing sensitivity program. I had to try to educate them on alleviating the problem, but I run into deadends.   Later in the year, Mr. Fry motioned me to his office. He wrote a note to tell me to stop staring at people in the office. I was shocked. I told him in defiance "My eyes are my ears!   You know very well that I am Deaf! " He was visibly angry and upset. He had to leave the office to tend to something else and told me to wait.   Mr. Fry came back and said for me to go back to work. We were not even finished talking about the issue. So he left me high and dry on that.   When the UPS had a new program to make shipping easier and they wanted to train me to enable me to utilize the program easier.   The Frys tried to have Julie Fritz to explain to me after the UPS training. I protested and said we could have sign language interpreter to do that and let us sort out the issues and communicate easier through the interpreter.   Mr. Fry was somewhat mocking in saying that the interpreter is really nothing and thought all the information that was relayed would come out the back way. I was perplexed to understand why Mr. Fry said something of that kind.   I had mixed emotions of feeling good to have interpreter at the training and feeling frustrated with Mr. Fry's attitude toward the interpreter.   There were some instances that they had meetings or gatherings without interpreter and I had to ask Terri Fritz to keep me posted on what is happening. But she was not qualified to relay the information.   January 1994 - at Mr. Fry's birthday party in the employee lounge, I was becoming frustrated when the staff and people got together and was talking. Mr Fry stood up and said some speech. I did not understand and was bold enough to stand up and ask to be excused. I walked out without knowing the answer and went to my desk and proceeded on working.   February 17, 1994 - I came to work few moments earlier to enable me some time to make copies of a letter requesting the Frys to look into consideration of buying a tty for three of us. I folded letters and stuffed into envelopes. Mrs Fry came in and said good morning. I replied back to her the same greeting.   Then I walked into the warehouse to pass the envelopes to Ruth and Melissa. I explained to them what the letter was about.   Then I returned to my desk to start working for the day.   I then asked Terri Fritz for a day off next week to see doctor about sinus problem I had been having for past few weeks. She said ok.   Then I put a letter on the divider at front of room for Mr. Fry.   Julie came to my desk and asked me what was going on and why I was using the copier to make personal copies. She accused me of breaking company policy.   She made some kind of accusations that I did not understand. She was talking too fast and I got frustrated trying to understand what she was talking about. There was no such company policy as many employees do help themselves to the copy machine. I motioned to the front that there was letter for Mr. Fry. She shook her head and said no.   I got up and walked up to the front desk and picked up the letter. I told her that the letter was for Mr. Fry.   She shook her head and opened the letter. I tried to tell her to wait til Mr. Fry comes in and we could have discussion with interpreter or something. She shook her head again and again.   I was frustrated about the way she was behaving and I thought something went wrong. I decided to tell her that she was being selfish.   I said to her, "You are selfish! You are selfish!".   I decided to stop discussing because of her eccentric behavior. I was thinking about going back to my desk and finish the work. I went to my desk and got papers, pen and ruler out of the drawer. The drawer was sticking due to size of the drawer (3 ft by 5 ft) and the aging of wood so I tried to push it close.   It got stuck and I had to hit it to slam it shut. It seemed like a bad day for me with those incidents that morning.   A while later, Julie came to my desk with a note. It said, " DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU WERE YELLING AT ME?". I looked at it and looked at her face puzzled.   I told her I was sorry as I did not know that I had yelled. I was only trying to communicate what I was saying. She took off back to her office.   I turned around to talk to Terri. I asked her what was wrong with Julie? She seemed to be different this morning.   I jested that she can buy houses, fur coats and cars, but cannot afford a tty device.   So I went back to work on my desk. She came out again to my desk and asked me if I was telling truth about what I said earlier. I said yes.   I asked her what was going on. She took off back to her office.   The day moved on and it was around 4:30 p.m. when I cleaned up my desk and put everything away.   Terri told me that Julie wanted me in her office. I replied ok and walked into Julie's office. She handed me a letter.   I read it and was shocked to find out that she was terminating me for insubordination. I was confused and I asked her what was going on? She was on phone and was sort of ignoring me. I asked her if she could get interpreter to discuss this matter. She turned her head away and was still talking on phone as if she wanted to ignore me. I said bye and went to the desk to clean out the stuff and got an empty box.   I picked up my papers and stuff and put them in the box. I looked around the room and was hurting inside. I picked up the box which was about three feet long. I then walked out the front door and used my foot to slam the door shut as I had hands full. I was too upset to think about what to do next, but I wanted to go home and talk to my family.  My family told me to proceed with legal assistance in reviewing to see justice for me. So I did file with Missouri Commission on Human Rights and the EEOC ( Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) in April of 1994. Several months passed and both agencies admitted that they had backlog of cases and could not pursue further on my case. They recommended that I find an attorney to be active on my case.   Days, Weeks, Months and Years have passed in pursuing legal manuevers in getting the case heard by the jury to determine ADA violations.   The attorneys have been working hard to present facts in both courts at District Court and Court of Appeals.   At the District Court, the judge ignored my case and favored the employer. He did not even bother to consider letting me have the jury to decide the case. He lacked the sensitivity in the ADA situation.  So we filed appeal at the Court of Appeals.   January 16, 1998 - The oral arguments were presented before a panel of 3 judges. The court of appeals took the case in consideration and reached the decision in spring of 1998.   2 out of 3 ruled in my favor and ordred the case to go back to the District Court to remand and have jury to review the case. The Select Artificials objected and filed for some kind of appeal to have a full panel of judges to hear the case. The court agreed to that appeal and scheduled for September 1998.   September 1998 - The oral arguments were presented before a panel of 13 judges. It is technically the same arguments presented before the 3 judge panel now heard by the 13 judge panel.  March 1999 - The 8th District Court of Appeals with the full panel involved reviewed the case and decided to favor the employer. There were four dissenting judges who disagreed.   So with 9 judges overriding the decision did favor the employer.   May 23, 1999 - A final decision is needed to either to give up the years of legal maneuvering to get the justice for the deaf or GO ON to the SUPREME COURT and have justice for the deaf there!?   So to make long story short, I need your help in raising monies to pay off legal bills and legal needs.   I am moving forward to go to the Supreme Court in Washington DC. But I am strapped of the funds at this time of year. I will appreciate a gift or loan.   Please let me know whether it is a gift or loan so I can comply with Internal Revenue Code. My attorneys will take care of that.  So tell me what you think I should do?               A. Go ahead to take the case up to Supreme Court                                                   or               B. forget it and swallow another bitter pill? Thank you for understanding and support in this matter! Any questions, contact Paul Kiel tty/fax 314-664-8959 pager 314-224-9764 voice 800-735-2466 E-mail pjkiel2000@aol.com Make checks payable to : Paul Kiel and mail to:     Paul Kiel                  3726 GravoisAvenue                  St. Louis, Missouri 63116-4652. Deadline: May 23, 1999 ***You may pass this to others to help fight against the discrimination by the hearing society! ---- UNITED PARCEL SERVICE VIOLATES CIVIL RIGHTS OF ITS DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING EMPLOYEES Oakland, CA—Today (May 13, 1999) in the U.S. District Court, Northern District Court of California, Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) and Schneider & McCormac filed a nationwide class action lawsuit (Bates v. UPS, et al.) against United Parcel Service (UPS) for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). UPS discriminates against persons with hearing disabilities by failing to provide the accommodations necessary to ensure effective communication in the workplace. UPS does not promote its deaf or hard of hearing employees. UPS also excludes its deaf and hard of hearing employees from holding, and fairly competing for, driver positions for which such employees are fully qualified. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that will force UPS into compliance with federal civil rights laws. UPS fails to provide very basic accommodations that its deaf and hard of hearing employees need to safely perform their jobs. For example, UPS does not provide sign language interpreters at orientation sessions, staff and safety meetings and even disciplinary meetings. It also fails to provide written materials so that deaf employees can get information that was presented orally to other employees at such meetings. UPS even fails to provide TDD machines (telecommunication devices for the deaf) so that deaf employees can communicate by phone at their work place, and failed to install visual emergency/warning equipment so that deaf employees can be notified of emergency conditions. As the largest package delivery company in the world, with a gross annual income of over $ 24.8 billion, UPS can well afford the costs of such accommodations. In addition, Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations permit drivers who satisfy state commercial driver license requirements to operate vehicles that weigh less than 10,000 pounds. Most UPS facilities have a number of driver positions that utilize these types of vehicles, yet UPS refuses to allow hearing impaired drivers who meet state regulations to drive such trucks. Moreover, Plaintiff Eric Bates even satisfied the stricter DOT requirements for driving vehicles over 10,000 pounds, yet UPS denied him an opportunity to drive any of its delivery vehicles. The named class representatives in this suit are Eric Bates and Bert Enos, both of whom are deaf. Mr. Enos states, “UPS made my life hell. UPS harasses its deaf employees and does not provide them with reasonable accommodations for their disability. UPS also ignores their requests for interpreters and a TDD. Without these accommodations, their safety is in great jeopardy.” Eric Bates has been employed as a pre-loader at UPS’ Sunnyvale facility since January 1996. He has twice completed UPS’ driver certification process having met both state and federal qualifications. However, UPS refused to allow Mr. Bates to drive any of its vehicles for which he is qualified. Mr. Bates described UPS’ refusal as “unfair because people with less seniority than I were promoted to driver positions and are therefore earning higher salaries. I have worked as a pre-loader for three years and have become certified to drive delivery trucks; I just want the same advancement opportunities provided to non-disabled workers.” Rowena Gargalicana, an attorney for the plaintiffs, notes: “It is ironic that UPS’ web page boasts about the company’s willingness to hire and accommodate deaf employees. The fact is that UPS routinely denied Mr. Bates and Mr. Enos basic accommodations such as a sign language interpreter during safety meetings. This lawsuit is necessary to get UPS to meet its basic legal obligations.” Plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a national civil rights nonprofit law firm exclusively representing people with disabilities and Schneider & McCormac, a prominent San Francisco civil rights firm. CONTACT: Larry Paradis/Rowena Gargalicana Todd Schneider/Noah Lebowitz Disability Rights Advocates Schneider & McCorma (510) 451-8644 (415) 440-3440 general@dralegal.org info@schneidermccormac.com ---- JUDGE SHOCKED BY TREATMENT OF PRISONERS WITH DISABILITIES By Claire Cooper Bee Legal Affairs Writer OAKLAND -- A federal judge announced Thursday she expects to rule that California's parole board has been violating the legal rights of prisoners with disabilities in "shocking and appalling" ways. The statement came from U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken at the end of a month long trial. Lawyers presented evidence that many people with disabilities have faced high, often insurmountable obstacles to parole or in fighting revocation of parole. Inmates and parolees who can't walk have been forced to crawl up stairs without assistance to get to their hearings, according to the evidence presented by the non-profit Prison Law Office, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund and a team of private attorneys. The lawyers also presented evidence that deaf inmates have been denied sign-language interpreters, and blind and mentally impaired ones have been denied readers. The suit was filed under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of several thousand disabled inmates and parolees. Donald Specter, the Prison Law Office director, said in closing arguments Thursday that it's a particularly severe violation of that law to make someone serve a longer prison term because of a disability. Wilken asked Specter to draft a suggested injunction. She set a mid-July deadline, giving the state's lawyers time to review it and make suggestions before it is submitted for her review and signature. Although she called her verdict in favor of the plaintiffs "tentative," she expressed a firm conclusion about the weakness of the case made on behalf of the parole board. "There has been essentially no defense," she said, criticizing the board for wasting money in court instead of complying with the disabilities law. That the "parade of horribles" presented by the plaintiffs has caused little concern at the parole board, she said, "makes it all the more shocking and appalling." During closing arguments Deputy Attorney General George Prince said the parole board doesn't control either the prisons, where most of the hearings are held, or the prison personnel, who deliver the inmates to the hearings. But Wilken said the anti-discrimination law doesn't permit the board to contract with facilities or personnel that violate legal requirements. She also criticized what she called "personal attacks" against prisoners and parolees with disabilities. The plaintiffs were disparaged by the defense as child molesters and murderers, said Wilken. They weren't asking to be treated like model citizens, she said, but merely like non-disabled child molesters and murderers. USA-L News ---- FCC WILL NOT TAKE ACTION ON PENDING TTY WAIVER PETITIONS May 14, 1999 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Public Notice Thursday reporting on the status of pending petitions for waiver of the Commission's TTY rules for wireless carriers. Reflecting recent developments addressing the incompatibility of text telephone (TTY) devices and digital wireless systems, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) announced that it will take no action on the pending petitions at this time. In the E911 First Report and Order, the Commission required that, as of October 1, 1997, all covered wireless carriers must be capable of transmitting 911 calls from individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through means other than mobile radio handsets, e.g., through the use of TTY devices. Carriers operating digital wireless systems have not been able to meet this requirement because digital systems are not able to accurately pass the specific audio tones produced by TTY devices. Recognizing the technical difficulties associated with transmitting TTY calls on digital systems, the Commission suspended enforcement of the TTY requirement for digital systems until December 31, 1998. In November 1998, the WTB announced that it would accept petitions for waiver of this section for carriers that could not comply with this rule as of December 31, 1998 and in response received more than 100 petitions. The Commission indicated, in an Order adopted December 30, 1998, that all parties filing petitions would receive "temporary waivers," and that each party's petition would subsequently be evaluated to determine if justification existed for the grant of a permanent waiver from this rule. The petitions currently are still pending. The wireless industry has presented the FCC with a possible solution to the TTY/digital problem. This solution would enable consumers to use existing TTYs in conjunction with digital phones, and achieve error rates as good as achievable with analog wireless phones. Although this solution has not been fully tested, it appears promising. Because of this, the FCC announced it will maintain the temporary waivers that were granted to carriers in December 1998 and is deferring further action on the pending petitions at this time. ---- THE WESTIN BONAVENTURE HOTEL SET TO HAVE TOWN HALL MEETING OF ADULTS WITH DISABILITIES Town Hall Meeting on Employment of Adults with Disabilities Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults With Disabilities; Notice of Town Hall Meeting SUMMARY: Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13078, authorizing the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities (PTFEAD), notice is given of the first Town Hall Meeting. The purpose of the Task Force is to create a ``coordinated and aggressive national policy to bring adults with disabilities into gainful employment at a rate that is as close as possible to that of the general adult population.'' The purpose of this Town Hall Meeting is to invite the public to participate and discuss their thoughts, concerns, and experiences with Task Force members. The topics to be addressed at this Town Hall Meeting are Expanding Employment Opportunities for Youth with Disabilities, and Expanding Entrepreneurial Opportunities for Self Employment of Adults with Disabilities. DATES: The PTFEAD Town Hall Meeting will be held on Thursday, June 3, 1999, from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 4:00 p.m. Registration is from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. The date, location, and time for subsequent Town Hall Meetings will be announced in advance in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: The Westin Bonaventure Hotel and Suites, 404 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, California. All interested parties are invited to attend this Town Hall Meeting. Seating may be limited and will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Heather Hammer, Senior Associate, Technical Assistance and Training Corporation, 2409 18th Street NW, Washington, DC 20009 (telephone (202) 408-8282 ext. 227; TTY (202) 408- 8033; fax (202) 408-8308; E-mail: hammerh@tatc.com). These are not toll-free numbers. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Executive Order No. 13078, the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities (PTFEAD), notice is given of the first Town Hall Meeting. The purpose of the PTFEAD is to develop a ``coordinated and aggressive national policy to bring adults with disabilities into gainful employment at a rate that is as close as possible to that of the general adult population.'' Although more students with disabilities are graduating from high schools and colleges, compared to students without disabilities, those with disabilities drop out of school at higher rates and they enroll in post-secondary education at lower rates. Moreover, youth with severe disabilities from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds are at an even greater risk of dropping out of school and facing unemployment. Some of the key issues to be addressed at the Town Hall Meeting include the accessibility of youths with disabilities to employment services and support, higher education and vocational training, and career planning, as well as the impact of employer attitudes, and discrimination. The PTFEAD will pay special attention to the added barriers that make full participation in school and the workforce problematic for minority youth with disabilities. With respect to the expansion of entrepreneurial opportunities for the self employment of adults with disabilities, the Town Hall Meeting will address: (1) The need to expand the opportunities available for those who already have businesses and need contracts, counseling, and technical assistance regarding procurement and opportunities, and (2) the need to expand opportunities for those who want to become self employed or small business owners. The membership of the PTFEAD was appointed by President Clinton, and includes the: Secretary of Labor, Chair of the PTFEAD; Chair of the President's Committee on Employment of People with Disabilities, Vice Chair of the PTFEAD; Secretary of Education; Secretary of Veterans Affairs; Secretary of Health and Human Services; Commissioner of Social Security; Secretary of the Treasury; Secretary of Commerce; Secretary of Transportation; Director of the Office of Personnel Management; Administrator of the Small Business Administration; Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; Chairperson of the National Council on Disability; Commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission; and such other senior executive branch officials as may be determined by the Chair of the PTFEAD. Agenda The Town Hall Meeting will focus on two topics: (1) expanding employment opportunities for youth with disabilities, and (2) expanding entrepreneurial opportunities for the self employment of adults with disabilities. Public Participation Members of the pubic wishing to present oral statements to the PTFEAD should forward their requests to Ms. Heather Hammer, Senior Associate, Technical Training and Assistance Corporation as soon as possible and at least four days before the meeting. Requests should be made by telephone, fax machine, or mail, as shown above. Time permitting, the members of the PTFEAD will attempt to accommodate all such requests by reserving time for presentations. The order of persons making such presentations will be assigned in the order in which the requests are received. Members of the public must limit oral statements to five minutes, but extended written statements may be submitted for the record. Members of the public may also submit written statements for distribution to the PTFEAD membership and inclusion in the public record without presenting oral statements. Such written statements should be sent to Ms. Heather Hammer, as shown above, by mail or fax at least five business days before the meeting. Minutes of all Town Hall Meetings and summaries of other documents will be available to the public on the PTFEAD web site www.dol.gov. Any written comments on the minutes should be directed to Ms. Heather Hammer, as shown above. Reasonable accommodations will be available. Persons needing any special assistance such as sign language interpretation or other special accommodation, are invited to contact Ms. Heather Hammer, as shown above. Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of May, 1999. Rebecca L. Ogle, Executive Director, Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities. ============================================================== DEAF WORKERS OF ORANGE COUNTY Orange County, California Richard Roehm President Internet : Deaf@activist.com Deaf_Workers_OC@usa.net Website Nesmuth@worldnet.att.net Http://www.i-sphere.com/eyedeaf/dwoc.htm =============================================================== Feel free to redistribute this newsletter in it's entirety and if you are planning to add a mailing list as a subscriber then let me know for my records. Thank you. =============================================================== Deaf Workers of Orange County will continue to aggressively pursue justice, fairness, and equality for the Deaf Community. =============================================================== Education is the best gift that lasts a lifetime! Help someone subscribe to Deaf Workers Weekly Bulletin ===============================================================