What we do

How CILS Make a Difference

 

By Timothy Redd
When I first started working at the Memphis Center for Independent Living it was a complete shift from my previous work experience. At first I had a challenging time understanding the independent living philosophy.  I felt like I was not the most effective independent living specialist and that I was not making a difference. I expected that all my consumers would make and accomplish their goals and that would make me successful as an ILS. I felt deflated when I had to close cases and my consumers just checked out altogether. I pondered how CILs make a difference.

Today I am convinced that CILs are vital and necessary more than ever. 

Our core services are information referral, advocacy, independent living skills and transition to community for people living in institutions and young people transitioning to adult life. I have seen these services help people gain greater independence and they have helped me as well.

Advocacy

When I heard about ADAPT I was absolutely hell bent and convinced that I did not want to go on a national action. After a good deal of arm wrangling, not literally and Tim Wheat’s and Allison Donald’s convincing; I went to DC and took part in the 2017 Spring Action. 

I met so many people with disabilities filled with passion for equality it humbling and affirming. I made new friends and met Maxine Waters, one of my political heroes. By the time I made it back to Memphis I dog tired but really wowed by the experience and it’s something that I will never forget.

After days of action the Affordable Care Act was not repealed. That is when I understood the power of advocacy. These days I’m quick to speak out against things that violate the ADA. 

Last month I went to my gym and I noticed some new machines that were blocking the aisle making it impossible for me to through. Immediately I spoke to the director letting him know that the gym was now inaccessible and in violation of the ADA because the machines took away clearance need for a wheelchair. They were relocated.

Independent Living Skills & Information Referral

I am a consumer here and I set a goal to learn to drive. I was referred to TN Vocational Rehabilitation Services and assigned a counselor. My goal was to learn to drive.  On February 5^th 2018 I attained my driver’s license and I have acquired a new independent skill.

Transitions to the Community

Last year I became a part of the peer-to-peer program where I worked as mentor for Nursing Home Transition consumers.  Bobbie Fields and I have met a great deal of people in nursing homes and seen firsthand some of the less than desirable conditions and how people have been stripped of their independence. 

A few months ago we began working an 80 plus year-old senior and just last month she moved into her own apartment. We accompanied here to the store to pick out her furniture for her new place.  She was so happy about beginning this new chapter of life and what sticks with me most about that day is her smile and sheer joy. 

Many times people with disabilities are relegated to expensive nursing homes because they need homemaker services or additional medical care. Today thanks to direct service workers in home care is possible and it helps people live in the community maintaining freedom. Nursing homes to me are nothing me than pretty prisons and I would hate to send a love one there and I hope I never find myself in one.

Accessible Computer Lab

We live in a digital age. The computer has become so much more than a tool to publish documents. We communicate with others, pay bills, connect the global world through social media, and pay bills and shops. I have seen numerous consumers go from not having computer skills to coming in showing off their first purchased laptops.

The truth is that are many barriers that people with disabilities unknowingly to the mainstream society. When a person has newly acquired their disability they are often in denial, angry, afraid, scared, depressed, and left wondering what kind of life can they still have?  

MCIL is a place of affirmation that says just because your body works different you are normal and a person first. Dealing with stigmas associated with disabilities is hard, being a part of a like community of peers is empowering.

The services offered at MCIL are critical when it comes to independent living, especially when our community is not regarded as vital in the scope of mainstream society and so easily is disregarded and falls through the cracks. I have shared how the Memphis Center for Independent Living has helped others and myself reach greater independence. We are here to support you on your path to independence.

Letter about the ADA Education and Reform Act

The Letter from U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth about HR 620

Dear Majority Leader McConnell:

We are writing to express our strong opposition to H.R. 620 the ADA Education and Reform Act and any legislation that would repeal or weaken rights under title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of a disability in certain places of public accommodation.[1] As a civil rights law, title III of the ADA was modeled after title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion and national origin in certain places of public accommodation.[2]

Title III of the ADA does not permit monetary relief in the form of damages or settlements. Similar to title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA only permits non-monetary injunctive relief and recoupment of reasonable attorney’s fees for individuals who prevail in a suit to enforce their rights under title III and secure removal of architectural barriers in public accommodations where readily achievable.

Congress carefully crafted title III of the ADA to make sure private enforcement actions prioritize achieving readily accessible barrier removal and are an affordable avenue for Americans with disabilities to seek relief. The expectation was that businesses would make themselves accessible before people with disabilities showed up at their place of business, rather than waiting until receiving a notice that people with disabilities have been excluded before starting to think about complying with the law.

The ADA is a groundbreaking civil rights law that recognizes the reality that removing an architectural barrier, when readily achievable, is a proven, efficient solution to improving accessibility in public places and providing equal treatment of people with disabilities across the United States. In recognizing the importance of accessibility, Congress also established tax incentives for businesses to lower the cost of making a place of public accommodation more accessible pursuant to ADA guidelines and requirements for architectural barrier removal.[3]

Proponents of H.R. 620 assert that eliminating the right of Americans to seek immediate injunctive relief under title III of the ADA is necessary to address private lawsuits that threaten businesses with punitive damages and demand monetary settlements. However, these private actions seeking damages are filed pursuant to specific State laws that unlike title III of the ADA, authorize monetary damages. H.R. 620 would make no change to those state laws and therefore fails to address lawsuits seeking damages.

However, it would destroy any incentive under the ADA for timely removal of architectural barriers in public accommodations. Because title III of the ADA does not provide for damages, a business would have no reason to comply with the law unless and until it received written notice from a person with a disability who had been harmed, informing the business that it had violated the law, and the business would then have four months to remove the barrier or make “substantial progress” in doing so. There would be no consequence for breaking the law until the notice was received and the waiting period expired.

When supporters of the discriminatory H.R. 620 argue for its necessity by citing examples of alleged “minor” accessibility infractions, they miss the point that this bill undermines the rights of people with disabilities, rather than protects them. There is nothing minor about a combat Veteran with a disability having to suffer the indignity of being unable to independently access a restaurant in the country they were willing to defend abroad. There is nothing minor about a child with cerebral palsy being forced to suffer the humiliation of being unable to access a movie theater alongside her friends.

Simply put, we reject in the strongest terms the offensive suggestion by supporters of H.R. 620 that a civil rights violation denying access to a public space could ever be “minor.” A ramp a few degrees too steep or a shower head a couple inches too high from the legally prescribed standards are the difference between accessibility and discrimination. To efficiently address the aforementioned examples, we would urge operators of public facilities to simply fix the problem by lowering the ramp a few degrees or lowering the shower head a couple inches. This will not only make sure entities comply with the law, but more importantly, providing accessibility will protect the health, safety and dignity of Americans with disabilities, as promised under a civil rights law passed nearly 28 years ago.

We share many of the concerns on the potential impact of H.R. 620 expressed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, which administers and enforces the ADA. We believe DOJ is right to be troubled by the premise that H.R. 620 would, “…[s]ubstantially change the balance Congress struck for private enforcement actions pursuant to title III of the ADA.” We also share DOJ’s concern that:

“The proposed notice and cure process would also unnecessarily limit individuals’ abilities to obtain much-needed barrier removal in a timely manner by imposing additional requirements that may not result in the collaborative process that the proposed bill intends, but may instead result in additional areas of litigation.”[4]

Congress should promote ADA compliance nationwide by improving existing tools and resources, rather than advancing a harmful and duplicative proposal such as H.R. 620, which would upend a carefully crafted legal framework that has boasted strong bipartisan support for nearly three decades. It would be more productive to enhance funding for existing ADA education and mediation programs rather than requiring lengthy notice periods that remove any incentive to follow the law until violations are detected and civil rights are denied.

We are ready to work with any Senator who is interested in developing pragmatic and bipartisan solutions that improve business’ compliance with the ADA. For example, we support strengthening the capabilities of the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s ADA Technical Assistance Unit, which provides education and technical assistance to help businesses comply with the law. We should also expand the ADA National Network, which supports ten regional ADA Centers and an ADA Knowledge Translation Center. These resources, funded through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, provide free assistance to entities seeking to comply with the ADA.

However, we will strongly object to any time agreement or unanimous consent request with respect to consideration of H.R. 620, or any similar legislation that seeks to weaken Federal protections for an entire protected class of Americans. By preserving title III of the ADA, Congress will uphold the intent and principle of the underlying statute that disability rights are civil rights.

No American should be forced to endure discrimination for any length of time so that places of public accommodation may learn how to follow a seminal, bipartisan civil rights law that was enacted in 1990. Respectfully, we urge you to join us in supporting the rights of Americans with disabilities by making clear that H.R. 620, or similar legislation, will never receive a vote in the United States Senate during the 115th Congress. 

Sincerely,

 U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL)


The letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Bob Casey (D-PA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tom Carper (D-DE), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Edward Markey (D-MA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Tina Smith (D-MN), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Warner (D-VA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Adversaries

MATA is unable to identify an adversary

By Tim Wheat

Yesterday, MATA sent three representatives to MCIL because they did not like our request to MATAplus riders. MCIL had noted that MATA phone operators were telling people that the system was “booked” and they could not get a scheduled ride or negotiate for a trip. MCIL tweeted short videos out to ask consumers if they were being denied for a ride by MATA’s paratransit system.

Anthony Amos, the MATA compliance officer, had no response when asked if MATA had illegal capacity constraints. His only consolation is to ask that people with disabilities be patient. His concept of collaboration was that MCIL represent MATA as if MCIL were on salary just like he is. Mr. Amos seemed to believe that “cheerleader for MATA” was the only way for MCIL to work collaboratively with MATA.

Anthony Amos called us adversaries.

But people with disabilities in Memphis have a great need for the system and are heavily invested in its success. Clearly not everyone in the community has high expectations for the public transit system, but there are citizens who demand, at least, minimal compliance with the federal civil rights laws. And some people with disabilities who envision a quality system to provide a reliable, safe, accessible, clean and customer-friendly public transportation system that meets the needs of the community.

MATAplus rider’s are being denied scheduled trips and patrons are dismissed without any explanation. Some callers are told that they cannot schedule a return trip. This seems like a veiled method to simply deny the request, and people that rely on accessible paratransit have few options if they are stranded away from home. MCIL cannot be a good partner and ignore what seems like an illegal pattern of discrimination at MATA.

Allison Donald wrote a great blog piece on March 16 in the MCIL Journal titled: Trip Denials on MATAplus. https://mciljournal.blogspot.com/2018/03/trip-denials-on-mataplus.html

That same day, Allison handed a print copy of the article to the Director of the paratransit system.

The best examples of our collaborative relationship were evident at that meeting. First, the Senior Manager of Customer Experience, Ms. Tiffany Casey was on the phone and said that the problem of the voicemail becoming full had been solved. She said that two people were assigned to check voicemail and that would not happen. However, Bobbie Fields, on our staff, got the message that the voicemail was full just the day before.

MATA administration believed they had solved the phone problem, it was only by direct interaction by MCIL staff that they can get objective feedback. MATA has recognized before that they have serious problems with the system. It is only with vigilance that the continuing problems will come to the surface and hopefully be solved.

That is a simple example of MCIL’s collaborative role. A more serious issue was also evident at the meeting. The Senior Manager of MATAplus Operations, LaBarbara Houston, said that every person that calls is given a scheduled ride time. She did not believe that anyone had been told that the system is “booked.”

Although it is often said among MATAplus riders, Ms. Houston said that everyone is given a time, even if it is more than an hour from what they requested. She believed that the MATAplus agents did not just end the call with the system being “booked.”

However, many riders have heard just that statement and MCIL staff was clear that they were told the system was booked and that no alternative times or negotiation was offered. This again is something that MATA administration would not have heard if it was not for the objective view of MCIL in collaboration with MATA.

MATA administration said they have no complaints on trip denials. It is only with the collaborative relationship with MCIL that this serious potential problem is evident to MATA. MCIL has turned to MATA for help, we have made what we know available and have offered assistance. MATA customers need to see that there is a resolution to capacity constraints and MATA administration needs the objective input from MCIL to accomplish their mission.

Notes from fixed-route bus

Notes from fixed-route bus

From Tim Wheat
12:18 I caught the 34 at Union and Willett: BUS 459.

12:24 The lighted display said: Union Ave and Hollywood. I believe the volume is so low that I cannot hear the announcements. No announcement at the front of the bus.

12:30 Lighted display: “Federal crime…”

12:31 I moved to the back of 1/3 of the bus to listen more closely.

12:36 Message about using the transportation planner on the lighted display.

12:38 Walnut Grove on the lighted display – clearly there is no audio announcements on this bus.

2:11 I got on the 50 West, BUS 21712 at Mendenhall

No call at Perkins or crossing route 37

2:12 “Approaching Oak Court Mall entrance.” Clearly on the loudspeaker.

2:15 Ad on the lighted display about the Fastpass

No notice of crossing route 34 (may not have pedestrian route to the bus stops)

2:20 “Approaching Poplar and Highland” Nothing about transfer to 9 or 35 that cross at Highland.

2:23 Pass the Memphis Benjamin Hooks main public library with no call or notice.

2:25 Another ad to use the trip planning tool.

2:25 “Approaching Poplar and Hollywood.”

2:28 At East Parkway – no call

2:30 Again a notice that assaulting an operator is a federal crime.

No call at Poplar and McLean.

Trip Denials on MATAplus

MATAplus Denials may be discrimination

By Allison Donald

Recent experience of MATAplus customers seems to show that MATA has a pattern of practice of trip denials which is violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Many people are hearing when they try to make a reservation that the system is “booked.” That sounds like a capacity constraint that is not allowed by the ADA and is impacting the way people with disabilities are able to travel. 

Denying people trips limits options of travel for a person with a disability.  It forces people to find other ways to travel.  I had to use Lyft on Wednesday to get to work, because I was denied a ride.  If I had to depend on Lyft as my transportation every day I would not be able to afford it.  For individuals with disabilities or elderly that solely rely on MATAplus for transportation trip denials cut them off from the communities that they live in keeping them in the house, because they do not have a ride.

People without disabilities do not face this on the fixed-route. That is why the trip denials are considered discrimination in the ADA. Part 37 131 f (3) makes it clear that MATAplus is to provide service that “shall not limit the availability of complementary paratransit service to ADA paratransit eligible individuals by any of the following … (B) Substantial numbers of trip denials or missed trips.” The regulations point out other things that MATAplus riders will recognize, you may really like to read all of the federal regs: 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/civil-rights-ada/part-37-transportation-services-individuals-disabilities

The MATAplus Rider’s Guide defines a trip denial as:

·        “Any trip that is more than one hour from the requested pickup time is considered a trip denial under the ADA,” is the direct quote from the MATAplus Rider’s Guide.

·        When the customer requests a round trip and MATAplus is only able to schedule one leg of the trip and is unable either to schedule the other trip at all, or can only schedule the other leg of the trip more than one hour before or after the requested pick-up time, even if the customer refuses or cancels the offered trip.

“Trip denials have affected my travel greatly, because I have had to scramble to make other arrangements,” said Dr. Deborah Carter who has been riding MATAplus since 2002.  “If Christina Clift did not request a Lyft ride for me I would not have been able to attend the workshop or have a ride home. I would have not been able to fulfill my commitment to speak at the workshop.”

Dr. Deborah Carter is not the only MATAplus rider to have her trip denied. We want to know about it.  If you are a MATAplus rider and have been denied a trip please contact Allison Donald at the Memphis Center for Independent Living at 901-726-6404; allison@mcil.org; #tripdenials on Twitter or leave a comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/mcilACTION/