Hello,
 
I am forwarding Ruth Bourquin's response to Glenn Young's  recent post.  Ruth 
is an attorney with the Mass. Law Reform Institute in  Boston, MA. 
 

Without opining on how "far off" you are, my  dear friend, Glenn:

With regard to both Title II (public entities) and  Title III (places of 
public accommodation), the actual term used is "reasonable  modifications" but the 
courts and the Office for Civil Rights have used that  term fairly 
interchangeably with "reasonable accommodations," the term used in  Title I with regard 
to employment. 

The Title II regulations issued by  the Department of Justice refer expressly 
to the duty to make "reasonable  modifications in policies, practices, or 
procedures when the modifications are  necessary to avoid discrimination on the 
basis of disability, unless the public  entity can demonstrate that making the 
modifications would fundamentally alter  the nature of the service, program, 
or activity." 28 CFR 35.130(b)(7). And the  Title III statute itself defines 
discrimination as including a failure to make  such reasonable modifications 
"when such modifications are necessary to afford  such goods, services, 
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to  individuals with 
disabilities," unless such modifications would fundamentally  alter the program. 42 USC 
section 12182(b)(2)(ii). So the concept of "reasonable  modifications" (or 
accommodations) is very central to both Titles II and III and  not limited to the 
provision of auxiliary aids and services. 

With regard  to the question of reasonable modifications "for what", I think 
the law is  pretty clear that the duty applies with regard to any of the 
"services,  programs, or activities of a public entity" (or place of public 
accommodation),  regardless of whether they are "essential". So if the program 
teaches reading to  some and the person with a disability wants to learn to read, it 
applies to  reading. If the program teaches math to others and the person 
with a disability  wants to learn math, it applies to math. If the program 
prepares people for the  GED and/or helps others gain skills or knowledge, it would 
apply to that.  

With regard to the discussion about whether technology could be used to  
bypass the need to learn to read and more quickly/directly enable someone to  gain 
skills and knowledge without reading, as a legal matter, I think the  
exercise of that option would need to be left to the person with the disability.  If 
the person wants to learn to read and the program generally teaches others to  
read, denying a person with a disability that opportunity and/or failing to 
make  reasonable modifications to allow the person a fair chance to learn to 
read,  would likely be found discriminatory. Of course, I didn't understand you 
to be  suggesting that the choice would be made by anyone other than the 
person with a  disability.
 
Ruth Bourquin




Rochelle Kenyon


Rochelle Kenyon
Moderator, NIFL/LINCS Learning Disabilities  Discussion List
Center for Literacy Studies at the University of  Tennessee
_RKenyon721 at aol.com_ (mailto:RKenyon721 at aol.com)  

To  post a message: 
_Learningdisabilities at nifl.gov_ (mailto:Learningdisabilities at nifl.gov)   

To subscribe: 
_http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/LearningDisabilities_ 
(http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/LearningDisabilities) 

To  read archived messages:
_http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/2008/date.html_ 
(http://www.nifl.gov/linc/discussions/list_archives.html) 




**************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.    
  (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/povertyracewomen/attachments/20080402/bdc36237/attachment.html