Will New DOT Rules Make Travel More Accessible

Since I’m a traveler with disabilities, my eyes become wide open reading about the latest developments on travel accessibility.  So, when I learned about the new regulations that the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued on accessible websites and kiosks, my imagination went wild.  Maybe now I actually could book airline reservations without rushing to avoid a 15-minute timeout when I’d be compelled to re-enter all my data.  Not yet, I’m afraid.

The DOT’s website-and-kiosk regulations, which are amendments to the Air Carriers’  Act of 1986,  allows airlines  two years to make their websites accessible to persons with disabilities.  At that, they won’t even be required to make their websites completely accessible for another year, only the core features such as pages with information on how to store special equipment on planes and how to request assistance.   DOT bases the requirements on the World Wide Consortium Web Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0).

Apparently, the DOT thinks making something accessible takes years.  It seems to be oblivious of the thousands of companies that have made their websites accessible since the conception of WCAG 2.0 in 2008.  To make a 200-page website accessible (i.e. placing text alternatives on images, labeling form fields, structuring headings and data tables, etc.), for example, the estimate would be three months, not three years.  

As for kiosks, the requirement period extends to ten years for airlines to purchase new accessible ones, which could have been purchased from IBM years ago.  The new DOT regulations do not even require existing kiosks to be remediated for accessibility.  If existing kiosks were required to be retrofitted, all they’d need are headphones so persons who are blind could hear the synthesized voice in private; a keyboard with tactile keys, and software that already would be accessible.  Delivery and implementation of these components could take weeks, not ten years. 

So why is DOT being so time lenient towards airlines fulfilling the accessibility requirements?  One possible reason is that those at DOT who wrote these regulations didn’t research how quickly technology can become accessible.  However, this reason may be hard to swallow since the DOT has been receiving complaints from consumers on the topic for years.  Surely, some of these complaints have outlined how easy making websites accessible can be.

Additionally, the DOT has been involved in lawsuits against JetBlue Airlines on the inaccessibility of its website and kiosks.  In the case, the DOT determined that web fares could be provided through the telephone.  At least now the government entity is acknowledging that airline websites and kiosks should be accessible, though the declaration may not be stern enough.

What about cruise ships, trains, and buses?  Complaints about their sites and kiosks have not inundated the DOT yet.  Maybe in twenty years, all travel-based information technology will become accessible.

(Appeared in Sun Newspapers August 31, 1997)

ADA is not causing workplace woes

Law only enforces the employment of  qualified people

On June 15 The Plain Dealer published an article called “Civil Rights vs. public rights” by Walter Olson.  For those of you who didn’t read the one-sided article, it blames the Americans with Disabilities Act for making employers hire people who pose a risk to society.

In the article, Olson cites several examples including an epileptic truck driver who crashed; a surgeon who practiced while having HIV; potential Federal Express drivers who have only one-eyed vision; a GTE worker who stole due to a chemical imbalance; and female firefighters who lack the strength to carry more than 40 pounds.

Granted, these cases do cause a safety threat to everyone involved.  Yet, while I was reading Olsson’s article, I feared what employers were thinking as they read it.  Since it implied the ADA as done more harm than good, would employers now be hesitant to abide by the ADA and thus hire less people with disabilities?

The ADA isn’t the reason some disabled individuals pose a risk in the work environment.  The law only enforces employment of disabled individuals who are qualified for a particular position.

In fact, an employer can test an applicant who already been offered the job for qualifying standards.  For example, after someone applies for a truck driver position and passes the initial interview, then the employer is permitted to give him or her an eye exam.  Since decent vision seems like a reasonable qualifying standard for driving a truck, an employer has every right to deny the job to an applicant who fails the eye exam.

Olson even cites the ADA clause that allows an employer to refuse a job to someone who “poses a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the work place.”

No, the reason isn’t a law that has the potential of helping thousands of disabled individuals gain employment, enabling them to get off welfare and Social Security.

Instead, the reason that employers hire potentially dangerous employers is bad judgment spurred by pressure from our legal system.  Even though the ADA or any other anti-discrimination law doesn’t require employers to lower performance standards, some still do for fear of being sued.

Their fear is unfounded, however, since only 650 ADA-related cases have been filed within the last five years.  Thus, Olson’s article cries work, fueling employers’ concerns.  To curtail their concerns, applicants, employees, and employers need to have more than adequate knowledge of the employment provisions of the ADA.

All three parties know how a disability is defined, what reasonable accommodations can be offered,  and what an employer can and can’t do.  For example, even though the ADA prohibits an employer from giving a medical exam to an applicant, the employer can still ask the latter to take an agility test from his or her own doctor if the position requires being agile. 

But regardless of how informed employers are on ADA matters, equal employment for qualified individuals who are disabled won’t be completely realized unless we don’t sabotage our chances.  If disabled individuals apply for jobs that they doubt they can handle, not only will they jeopardize their potential positions and perhaps pose a job risk, they always will tempt fate for those disabled persons who fully qualify for jobs.

Attacking the Americans with Disabilities Act won’t make the workplace safer and it won’t help create better hiring tactics.  It will only hurt those qualified candidates with disabilities who seek what they deserve: an equal opportunity to show their abilities. 

If you are an employer or a potential employee who is doubtful about your rights, call the ADA hotline sponsored by the Justice Department at 800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0333 (tty). *

*Since the original publication of this column, ADA has a website, www.ada.org.