>> [Background Music] The Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, DRN, is a statewide nonprofit corporation designated as the organization to advance and protect the civil rights of adults and children with disabilities. We work with people with disabilities, families, organizations and advocates to ensure that people with disabilities can live in their communities free of discrimination, abuse and neglect. We identify systemic issues that are important to people with disabilities and seek to change and reform our system through litigation, public policy advocacy and public education. Our mission is to advance, protect and advocate for the human, civil and legal rights of Pennsylvanians with disabilities. >> [Background Music] We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We all know that phrase and we believe we know what it means. The Declaration of Independence established the basis for our American democracy and the freedom that we all enjoy. But, people with disabilities have been isolated despite the Declaration of Independence, despite the vision of the founders. We've been locked in institutions. We've been told we couldn't use public transportation because it wasn't available for us. We've not been able to use public bathrooms. We couldn't get into restaurants that our families went to. We couldn't vote in polling booths and we were turned down when we tried to go to school. If we did get into school we were sent to segregated special education programs. We were marginalized, stigmatized and restricted. And why is that, because we had disabilities. Yet we all want to live a life of dignity and respect. And over the last several decades people with disabilities have more and more begun to express themselves as members of the whole community. Perhaps there was a time in our history when people with disabilities felt like they needed to bear their cross so to speak. But, since Vietnam War, since many veterans returned from Vietnam wanting to be a part of American society and since those of us with disabilities who joined them in an effort to seek independence in our lives as well as in our Declaration of Independence. We became stronger and we began to work together to fight for equal opportunity and equal rights. And through the 1980's when there was discussion about the prospect of having an Equal Rights Amendment we all worked together. We all fought together. We all met. We all joined our voices together. We all worked together. That was the joy of working toward the Americans with Disabilities Act. People with disabilities regardless of the type of their disability, people with disabilities and their family members, their parents, their loved ones and members of the community who cared for them as well were working together to break down the barriers preventing us from having full participation in our communities. July 26, 1990, President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities Act also known as the ADA. The ADA doesn't ensure that we are treated equally by everyone and it doesn't eliminate individual prejudices or the effects of stigma. It doesn't erase history. But, it does take us a step closer to true equality. It provides the framework for equal opportunity. >> Hi. My name is Gabe Labella and I'm here to welcome you to Express Talk, a production of the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania made possible by a grant by the Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Council. We have four distinguished guests with us today and I'd like to introduce them, Ilene Shane, welcome Ilene. >> Hi. >> Ilene is the founder and was Executive Director of the Disability Law Project and was also a past CEO of the Disability Rights Network. Rocco Iacullo. Rocco welcome. >> Hi, nice to be here. >> Nice to have you. Rocco is a staff attorney at the Disability Rights Network. He focuses on ADA and other non-discrimination issues. Koert Wehberg to my right, welcome Koert. >> Thanks, nice to be here. >> Koert is also a staff attorney at the Disability Rights Network focusing on special education issues. Prior to coming to the Disability Rights Network Koert was a staff attorney at New York Lawyers for Public Interest and focusing on ADA and fair housing issues. Our next guest is Lex Frieden who-- welcome Lex. >> Thank you. >> Lex is a professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center of Houston. He served in the past as Executive Director of the National Council on Disabilities as well as having served as its chairman. Lex, as a person with a disability did you experience discrimination? >> You know what, I think everybody with a disability experienced discrimination if they lived in the 1950's, 60's, even the 1970's. And maybe people with disabilities experience discrimination today. Some people experience it and they don't know what it feels like. My personal experience had to do with somebody telling me, an official telling me that I wasn't allowed to do something that I knew darn well I could do despite my disability. And I said, "Well, let me show you." And they said, "No. The rule is you're not able to participate because you use a wheelchair. You have a disability." And I pleaded and I protested and none of that was to any avail because the organization had a rule that people with disabilities could not participate. That felt to me like it wasn't right. It just didn't feel right. Nobody told me that was discrimination. But, I knew that I could do it and I knew the reason they said I couldn't do it is because of a characteristic over which I have absolutely no control. I wasn't the cause of the matter that I had a disability. I couldn't fix that I had a disability. I wasn't changing it that I had a disability. I simply was living with a disability that was part of me and then somebody said you cannot do this because of something I had no control over. And yet, I knew that practically speaking, physically speaking, functionally speaking I could do that and that just felt wrong. And you know I did-- one night after that happened wake up thinking you know this must be what African Americans felt like when somebody told them they couldn't ride in a certain seat in the bus or when they couldn't sit in a certain place in a restaurant or when they couldn't even spend the night overnight in certain cities. And the-- you know obviously people do bad things to people. And telling them that a rule prevents them from doing something despite their capabilities is simply wrong and people with disabilities have experienced that, some of them not to the same degree. And as I said before, I think all people experience disability and some of them just settle for it. So, they don't even register when it occurs. Life is too short. They just go on about business. That's a sad thing about it. But, the good thing about it is now because of the ADA and other progress we've made people in the public generally accept people with disabilities as being part of the larger population, part of the mainstream and they grant us the opportunity to fully participate. And that's what I think we're all living for. >> Thank you very much Lex. And Koert, I'd like to ask you as well as a person with a disability did you experience discrimination and how? >> Well I did. Before we mention that, the ADA, one of the important parts of you know its coverage was employment. And as an attorney getting out of law school I had-- looking for a job as a lawyer and I interviewed with an employment, very large employment defense firm. And I assumed that a law firm doing employment would know all about the ADA and I would have nothing to worry about. And during my interview I was-- the interviewer told me that he was completely astonished that somebody who was blind like myself could make it through law school and wouldn't know how I could make it at a law firm and asked me all kinds of questions about my disability and was not sold on the idea that I could be a capable attorney. And I was completely stunned. I thought that you know over 15 years after the ADA had been passed an employment attorney should I thought maybe know a little bit more about the law. You know who am I being a recent-- >> Apparently not. >> Apparently not. I guess you know although that certainly was a negative experience I will say that you know the ADA did allow me to you know go to college and law school with having texts and you know PDF documents and alternative formats and have universities and law schools pay for assistive technology. And so a lot more you know doors were open to me because of the ADA's passage. >> Thank you. And Rocco I'd like to ask you as well. >> Sure. I think my experiences may not be as direct as Koert and Lex have talked about. But, it's still an interesting aspect to talk about in terms of things. And the difference between you know the civil rights for people with disabilities because there's a lot of things where it's just by nature of the built environment that people with disabilities are discriminated against. And that's a lot of the changes I've seen you know even growing up in my lifetime. You know more in the public accommodations side remembering when I was a lot younger and going to arenas or sporting events and there being no accessible restrooms whatsoever, no accessible seating. And just realizing you know kind of how lucky I am that over my lifetime those things have changed and that's opened up a lot of activities that just because previously they were not accessible and there was no law requiring those facilities to be accessible that I now have freer access to. And so I think that's the biggest change that the ADA has incurred over the years is in terms of the building environment and making things so much more accessible to people with disabilities although there still is a long way to go. And that's what you know we're fighting to open up other things like you know medical care is one area that even in you know in my direct experiences you know-- >> Um huh. >> We don't get the same access as people without disabilities. You know inaccessible equipment and just attitudes of-- you know the medical community sometimes is an area where there's still progress to be made. But, overall I think the ADA has helped in terms of making things more open and accessible to people with disabilities. >> Ilene, what would you consider the beginning of the legal rights of persons with disabilities? >> Well, the first major national piece of legislation was passed in 1973 and that's known as section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. And it was modeled against the other civil rights laws that had preceded it for other kinds of minorities and other kind-- and in the 60's. But, it was the first major national law for people with disabilities. And it was a law that covered all disabilities. It covered basically anyone with a mental or physical impairment who had a major-- a deficit in a major life activity. And the-- however, 504 only applied to recipients of federal funds, but that's a pretty broad array of institutions when you think about hospitals, schools, towns, municipalities are all recipients of federal funds. So, that was really the major first piece of legislation nationally. >> Um huh. And also Ilene, did you see a lot of change with the enactment of section 504? >> Well, section 504 is only one line long. So they-- Congress left to the individual agencies the responsibility to write the regulations that would really say how to implement 504. And the problem was that those agencies really did not have an interest in doing that. And for many years a lot of the focus was in trying to get the agencies to actually write the regs. When that was-- and that was a very slow and not terrifically successful process and it also ran headlong into the period of deregulation. And in fact, section 504 was targeted-- >> Um huh. >> By I think President Reagan as an area where they wanted to see deregulation. >> And was 504 the first cross disability law? >> It applied to people with all disabilities, any mental or physical disability. It was non-prescriptive in terms of it did not list specific disabilities that were covered. It was really just functional limitations as a result of mental or physical impairment. >> Thank you. And Lex we'd like to hear your comment as well around the change with the enactment of section 504. >> Well, one important aspect of the 504 and frankly for the whole Title V enactment in 1973 was the kind of empowerment sense that it gave to many people with disabilities. There was, I remember in a disability journal that was frequently read by people who had disabilities called, "The Polio Gazette." I remember-- I'll never forget the headlines that said equal rights for people with disabilities. We now have our civil rights. And people with disabilities kind of had a sense that that was what was intended by the amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. However, we soon discovered that there were no teeth in that particular provision. I for example, applied to go to a university after that and was turned down strictly because I had a disability and they essentially told me that. So, there were no enforcement mechanisms at that time. Years later after the disability community began to protest and after the sit-ins that led to the regulations I received a letter from that same university inviting me back to school there. So, 504 was kind of an empty promise in some respects. But, I think it felt like progress to us. >> Uh huh. And Lex, how difficult was it to get the ADA passed? >> Well, I mean obviously to pass a piece of legislation of that scope is not an easy task and we had to work for several years. But, I would say that we had a lot of people working together with us. The National Council on Disability as you know framed the law in a proposal that was offered in a 1986 report called, "Toward Independence." And later we drafted the first version of the bill and published that in a 1988 report called, "On the Threshold of Independence." And throughout that process Justin Dart and others who were members of the council and volunteers working with us were going around the country meeting with groups of people with disabilities, family members, advocates and others getting input about why this law was necessary so that when we finally did get to the floor of the Congress and hearings were held in 1989 we were able to provide a lot of evidence that this was important and needed. And we had a bipartisan support for it, which I think is very, very important. And it was certainly important when the law was passed. >> Thank you Lex. That was very exciting information since you were there. Ilene, was there concern with the cost of implementing the ADA? >> That's one of the really interesting things about the ADA, which is Congress really balanced back then the needs of the business community and the people who would be paying some of the costs associated with the ADA and the needs for nondiscrimination. And they really took a phased in approach. So, it didn't say upon passage of the ADA all of this is going to happen. It basically said if you're going to build a new building, if you're going to remodel a building just to take physical access as an example, make it accessible because at that juncture it's really a very nominal cost to make something accessible. And they didn't require everyone to go back and retrofit. And they only required, again using buildings as an example, if it was readily achievable. In other words if it didn't-- was really pretty easy to do or it was new construction or new-- or major modifications. >> And there were a lot of concerns by members of the Congress and others about the prospective costs of the ADA. But, when we explained to them that we weren't asking to have the earth made flat we were simply asking to have a reasonable accommodation, people began to understand that. Now, bear in mind the reasonable accommodation framework was established in the regulation of the original Title V rules and we simply applied that, took that, borrowed that and placed it within the ADA law. >> And how did the passage change the legal landscape, Ilene? >> Well, the ADA was really-- this was also true of 504, but, as Lex said, the ADA had teeth and the ADA was legally, enforceable in court and also there were administrative agencies set up to receive complaints. So, the ADA was a much more powerful statute. >> Uh huh. >> And the ADA unlike 504 laid out in specificity what was required. It didn't leave to the federal government the task of saying what was required. It laid out what was required. >> Right. >> And it therefore was able to be implemented right away. Interestingly, both laws were a recognition and it's really very profound when you think about it retroactively that the problems that people with disabilities faced were not so much a product of their disability, but were a product of how society was treating those disabilities. And really 504 and the ADA both recognized that for people with disabilities to move forward society had to change. >> Got it. Thank you. And how had the ADA addressed people in institutions? >> That actually is a very interesting history. Under 504 it had been raised in court cases that wasn't the question of whether segregation in an institution was itself a form of discrimination, unnecessary segregation in an institution because of a disability was that a form of discrimination? And those early cases under 504 were unsuccessful. With the passage of ADA there was a slight change in the language of the ADA as compared to the regulations under section 504. And that change was enough to give the third circuit, which is our circuit, in a case brought by the Disabilities Law Project the basis to conclude that unnecessary segregation was a form of discrimination under the ADA. And ultimately that issue went up to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the holding that unnecessary segregation is a form of discrimination. >> Koert, what areas did the ADA cover? >> So, the ADA has three main parts called Titles. The first one covers employers with 15 or more employees and that requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. The second Title covered what's called public entities, which are state and local governments. So for example, local-- it's the local courts, transportation, state universities all had to be accessible and couldn't discriminate against people with disabilities. And Title III covered public accommodations. So, in other words, commercial facilities, anything from amusement parks to hotels, doctors' offices, law offices had to be accessible to people with disabilities. >> And just to add one piece under Title II of the ADA also covers access to public transportation, which is a major part of Title II. And Title III also does apply to commercial facilities as well. And also telecommunications are covered in another section of the ADA as well. >> And what's very significant here is the extension into the private sector. >> Okay. >> You no longer needed to tie discrimination to the receipt of federal funds. Anything that was open to the public was covered by the ADA and it didn't matter that they had no connection to the federal side. So, given that what about housing? >> The ADA does not cover anything that is specifically residential housing. The ADA would cover any common areas of let's say a condominium complex or apartment complex that would be open to the public. So, if there was a swimming pool or club that was open to the general public and not just to residents it may be covered by some of the physical accessibility requirements-- >> Um huh. >> Of the ADA. Residential housing is actually covered by another civil rights statute, which is the Fair Housing Amendments Act, which explicitly covered people with disabilities. And created accessibility requirements for new construction of covered multifamily housing and also requires reasonable accommodations to be provided with-- to residents with disabilities. >> And is the Fair Housing Act as broad as the ADA? >> I would say it's not quite as broad as the ADA. Again in terms of the physical accessibility requirements it only applies to new construction. There actually is no alteration requirement. >> Um huh. >> And in fact, in one important area I don't believe the Fair Housing Act went far enough in terms of you know for existing multifamily housing. If there is limited accessibility the law says that the landlord has to allow the individual tenant to make physical changes, but at their own costs. There's no obligation of the landlord to make the physical changes. But, in terms of reasonable accommodations you know I think it is somewhat equivalent to the ADA in requiring accommodations to be made to tenants with disabilities. And one area where the Fair Housing Act may go further than the ADA is in terms of emotional support animals. They are covered under the Fair Housing Act, but are not covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act. >> Okay, thank you. And what are some of the major requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act? >> As Koert mentioned, there are varieties of sections in the act so that you really have to take each one in its turn. But for example, in the area of employment, which is of course, a very important area, the ADA prohibited discrimination against qualified applicants or qualified recip-- people with a job. But, what's really significant is how they define qualified and it's a person who with reasonable modifications could perform the essential functions of a job. So, that it suddenly opened up this notion that you might have to do something reasonable, but different-- >> Uh huh. >> When you were hiring a person with a disability and that they may not be able to do every-- 100 percent of the functions of the job, but that they had to do the essential functions of the job. So, that's just for example, in the area of employment what the ADA did. But, you have to go through a similar analysis in each piece, education, public access, etc. >> Just to follow up on what Ilene was talking about in terms of major requirements of the ADA. I think that there are two other themes running throughout the ADA and number one is physical accessibility. We've talked a little bit about that in terms of new construction and alterations. And also in terms of Title III even for existing facilities if it's readily achievable to make accessibility improvements. Those public accommodations, for instance, would have to make those changes. Another general theme throughout the ADA is this concept of reasonable accommodation or reasonable modification not just in the employment context as Ilene spoke about. But, even in Title III if you go to a local store you know they may have to move displays to provide access to people with disabilities. But, they might be required to provide communication devices for people who are deaf or hard of hearing to participate in their goods and services. And so that's sort of a main theme throughout the entire ADA is this concept of reasonable accommodations, things that are very easy to provide. Even things that may have some cost that are required to be provided to ensure that people with disabilities have equal access to their community and to these entities. >> Right. And does the disability have to be permanent? >> Again, the definition of disability under the ADA is somewhat similar to what it was under 504. And that is that you have to show that you have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. And part of that analysis means that the disability doesn't necessarily have to be permanent. You know you could have a impairment that is of a shorter duration, but you need to look at how that affects major life activities. So, even if something that is going to last you know six months, eight months if it does substantially limit a major life activity when you have that impairment it still could be considered a disability under the ADA. >> We tried to change a historic view of disability from a medically oriented perspective to a strictly a functional perspective. And we tried to talk about impairment and the necessary-- accommodations necessary to overcome impairments as opposed to fixing people who have medical problems that we then called disabilities. So, the whole language changed at the time of the ADA. You may recall that the amendments to the Fair Housing Act that were mentioned a minute ago did not have any provision for disabilities. And yet, they use the same definition that we used in the ADA in those 1998 amendments. >> Thank you. And Lex, we've heard from Rocco and Ilene and I'd like to know you know it sounds really expansive from their description. But, I recall a time when the person with an obvious disability could not make a claim under the ADA. >> Well, I mentioned the status that I had when I was turned down for the university because I had a disability. And I think a lot of people were frustrated at that point in time because we extensively were granted rights under these provisions in 504 and 503 for that matter. And we were never able to achieve the kind of equal opportunity that we expected to be able to achieve. ADA in my estimation really didn't expand any rights. It just clarified the rights we had and provided a mechanism through a complaint process to have our complaints heard. Once people understood the purpose of the matter we developed a lot of support. And I think the thing I'm most proud of is the huge majority that passed the ADA on final passage in both the Senate and the House. >> Thank you Lex. And Ilene, just to follow up in terms of how the ADA does sound expansive, but recalling that there were people who could not make a claim that-- can you comment on that with the-- >> Well, the courts were not what I would call generous in their interpretation of the ADA in the early years. And ultimately we had to go to Congress to clarify some of the issues that the courts-- on which the courts had given negative rulings to put the ADA frankly back to what I think was the original intent of Congress notwithstanding the courts' interpretations otherwise. And Rocco maybe you want to give some examples of that. >> Yeah. I mean I think really what the major problem was, is that with Title I of the ADA prohibiting employment discrimination and again being expansive and applying now the private employers. That it was really a function of that the fence bar for private employers figured out oh, as a defense that they could challenge whether someone had a disability under the law and not even have to address whether their employer discriminated against that employee. And so the courts kind of accepted that line of defense and started to narrow the definition of disability. And it really got extreme to the point where people with you know fairly obvious disabilities the courts were saying that they were not persons with disabilities under the ADA because their disability or their impairment did not substantially limit major life activities. There are other rules of construction that the courts began to set up including saying that you needed to consider mitigating measures. So, if someone had epilepsy, but they took medication and that as a result of taking the medication they had limited seizures or did not have very many seizures that that person no longer was covered by the ADA. And so it started to become very difficult for people to address discrimination, so that person with epilepsy the employer could discriminate against them, but there would be no recourse because the court would throw the case out and say that that individual does not have a disability. >> Right. The court couldn't-- wouldn't even get to the merits of the discrimination matter. It would simply in a way did bar the claim because a person didn't have a disability then a court would not even address whether a discrimination happened at all. >> And to repeat the irony was that you had this disability, you had a mitigation, but the employer was allowed to say, but we're going to discriminate against you because you have that disability. >> Right. >> And the fact that it's mitigated is irrelevant to us because you can't go to court because you're not covered by the ADA because your disability is mitigated. >> Right. >> So, you have this person who was both a victim of discrimination and yet they had no rights under the ADA. So, I think it has made a big difference in terms of being able to get over that threshold question of are you covered by the ADA. The plaintiff still has a-- has to prove that they were-- that they are a qualified person and all the other criteria of the ADA. But, at least they're allowed to stay in court. >> That is so-- >> And so that's where-- >> The ADA amendments I suppose. >> Yes. And so that's where-- >> Okay. >> Congress stepped back in to reassert its authority and to reassert its view that the ADA should be a broad and expansive law and to focus more on the actual discrimination than whether or not someone has a disability. And so Congress through the amendments in 2008 basically set out some new rules of construction in the law to clarify its intent that the law should be applied broadly. And while it didn't define certain things it actually in the law, in the amendments cited to some of the court language and how-- and said that that court language was incorrect. That was not in accordance with Congress's view. Congress did set forth some changes in terms of defining major life activities that are covered because that was another area courts were narrowly construing what would be considered major life activities. So, they clarified that, expanded it to include major bodily functions, not just things like seeing, hearing, walking. >> Let's talk about what you see as the challenge moving forward for people with disabilities. And anyone can-- >> You know I'd like to say that the challenges moving forward are no less significant than the ones we are past. And some of those are pretty evident when you, when you understand that people with disabilities now in sheltered workshops are being paid less than the minimum wage. When you understand that people with disabilities who want to rent housing are not able to find accessible dwellings despite the fact that those dwellings are covered by the Fair Housing Act. When you realize that there are people in some communities who don't have access to transportation because there is no transportation accessible or not. We certainly do have challenges moving forward. Obviously we have a firm foundation. But, I'd like to hear my colleagues' views on that as well. >> Sure. I hear the term sheltered employment. Can you explain? >> The real question is in an employment context is a person or people with disabilities just working with other people with disabilities or are people with disabilities in competitive employment along with everyone else? And I think anytime you have a situation-- I shouldn't say any time. But, most times when you have a situation where people with disabilities are sort of forced together by virtue of that disability you have to question whether that's really a necessary thing and whether that's a form of discrimination. You also have the problem of sub minimum wage and other issues around sheltered workshops. But, it really is a question of not being in the competitive work environment. And I think what we know is that with supports people with disabilities can be in the competitive work environment. And yet, we still see people placed in sheltered workshops where they are working only with other people with disabilities. >> And I would add to that I mean they're-- I would even say that they're warehoused in. I mean we've been to some of these facilities and they're basically a big warehouse with long tables set up and the individuals just do these simple mundane tasks like filling-- one place they were filling silly putty into little containers over and over again. And there was actually one woman that was in there. She was I mean in her 50's and she must have been in that sheltered workshop for 30 years and she had no idea that there was any other opportunities out there. So, they are pretty-- >> [inaudible comments] >> Bad places. And you know we need to give people with disabilities those choices including those people in the sheltered workshops who don't know that there's any other opportunity-- >> Right. >> Out there for them. >> I think another challenge that we face I've noticed is you know people with you know so called invisible disabilities my education mark I've come across a lot of students with autism, with intellectual disabilities who on first glance might not appear disabled. And I think you know employers or other entities are very used to encountering you know people with physical impairments or other disabilities that they can see. But, now that I encounter people coming into the workplace with these, you know with autism or other invisible disabilities I think the challenge is you know showing employers and governments or businesses that you know these individuals need accommodations as well. And just changing their attitudes you know about that. >> And although we've made progress we still have large numbers of people that are unnecessarily institutionalized. And I think as long as that exists the ADA has a long way to go. With our population aging I think we're more and more going to be looking at the issue of nursing homes and people unnecessarily being placed in nursing homes for long periods of their lives when they could live in their homes with supports. >> Thank you, challenges? >> Well, challenges I think is just to as Lex said, we have a firm foundation and I think a lot of progress has been made on physical accessibility. But, the challenge is to keep that momentum moving forward and not to revert back to old stereotypes. And I think that's where some of the areas that Lex talked about in terms of the sheltered workshops-- you know we here at the Disability Rights Network have been taking a look at this issue and advocating on this issue. And it's something where those stereotypes start to creep back in. You're dealing with individuals with intellectual disabilities that if you really look at it with supports and services they can work in the community. But, there is this view out there that because of their disabilities they are not able to work in the community. And so we need to continue to work on that to maintain the progress that has been made. And we still have to fight against those types of stereotypes that are out there. >> Um huh. On a more positive note has the American with Disabilities Act changed our culture and how? >> I would say the culture's been changed radically by the ADA. July 26, 1990 at 10:00 A.M. Eastern Time CNN broadcast live from the Whitehouse the President of the United States saying people with disabilities have a right to equal opportunity. And people with disabilities should play a role in our society and every aspect of our society. People all over the world watched that broadcast and that was the headline in the newspapers from New Delhi to London to you know everywhere in the world. And I think with that we effectively altered history and now people with disabilities being full participants have in effect altered not only the present, but the future as well. So, in fact the ADA caused a scene change of attitude among the world's population. There is a lot to do granted, but I really feel blessed to live in the 21st century in the United States of America. >> Thank you Lex. Ilene would you-- >> It's really hard to argue with that. You walk down the street and you see car pods and you see ramps and you see ways of getting into buildings and those of us that are a little older know that was not always the case. And these things are really since the ADA. And it really has changed the ability of people to get around. And we're much more used to people with disabilities just being part of our culture and part of our society in a way that just was not true 30 or 40 years ago. So, I really agree with Lex that it has caused both a sort of a seat change in terms of the architectural change, but just in terms of our attitudes of people with disabilities. I remember the first time when I was watching television and there was a walk on cast member, I shouldn't say walk on because they were in wheelchair, but a cast member who was in a wheelchair and they weren't a star. They were just one of the people in the background. And I thought that's really terrific. Nobody's making a big deal out of that. They're just like another person there in the background-- >> Right. >> On that TV set. >> Um huh. >> And I think that's become more and more the custom that we're used-- because people with disabilities have gotten-- become part of the culture have become more integrated into the culture-- >> Um huh. >> It becomes normal. >> Right. It's funny you mention walking down the street. I notice when I hear you know this is-- speaking of living in the 21st century I sometimes hear children ask their parents what that white stick is for. And you know there are still, of course, some parents who shush their children and run as fast as they can. But, most do say well that white cane is so he can get around. And I say well, that's great that people know that that cane is for actually you know navigating the streets. And just the you know although I did mention that one negative experience, it's great to you know for the most part to have employers say oh, you know you-- what accommodations do you need and we can provide them. And it's great to not have the 24/7 anxiety of how can I you know do my job or get somewhere. I know that you know the ADA has you know changed the culture in that respect. And it's-- that is indeed a blessing. >> Thank you Cort and Rocco in closing. >> I mean I agree with you know everything everyone has said here about changing the culture. My only you know thing to really add is sometimes you need to look to the youth to see whether stereotypes and attitudes have changed. And you know I just know sort of piggybacking on what Cort said a little bit that just among-- you know the youth oftentimes to them it doesn't even phase them to see someone in a wheelchair or see someone with a disability because of the advances we've made in integrating kids with disabilities into regular classrooms. And you know into other areas of life it doesn't phase them-- >> Right. >> Anymore. And I think that's a good sign that we've made a lot of progress and that it has changed the culture. >> Thank you for being with us today. Thank you to our panel of distinguished guests. Again to remind you this is a production of the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania made possible by a grant from the Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Council. Thank you again. >> [Background Music] If you or someone you know is a person with a disability and believe you are being discriminated because of your disability please contact us for more information on how to advocate for yourself, 1414 North Cameron Street, Second Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17103, 800-692-7443 extension 400, TDD 877-375-7139, intake@drnpa.org. For more information visit us at www.drnpa.org. The Disability Advocacy Support Hub is a project of the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania funded by the Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Council to provide trainings and technical assistance to disability advocacy groups in Pennsylvania. If you need technical assistance or have questions please contact us at the Disability Advocacy Support Hub (DASH). Contact DASH by calling 866-915-3274 or 877-375-7139 TDD. You can also email us at dash@drnpa.org or write to us at DASH, 1414 North Cameron Street, Second Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17103. Current events, audio and video trainings and other resources can all be found on our website, www.drnpa.org/dash funded by the Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Council. Express Talk: Passing the Americans with Disabilities Act and Moving It Forward. This program is a production of the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, DRN. Participants, introduction picture one DRN Harrisburg office building. Introduction picture two Eric Howell, Administrative Assistant. Introduction picture three Judy Banks, acting Chief Executive Officer. Introduction picture four Dynah Haubert Staff Attorney. Introduction picture five Rocco Iacullo Staff Attorney. Introduction picture six, Ronece Martinez, Intake Systems Director. Introduction picture seven, Kimi Sweatt, Intake Coordinator. Host Gabriella Labella, guest one Lex Frieden, guest two Ilene Shane, guest three Rocco Iacullo, guest four Koert Wehberg, videographer Invica LLC, Chad Edwards, Executive Producer, Lan Do, co-executive producer George Taylor, co-executive producer Dana Thompson. Special thanks to Mark Murphy, Carl Marshall, Terry Roth, Sol B. Vazquez-Otero, Dynah Haubert, James W. Conroy, J. Gregory Pirmann, Ellen Tierney, Omar Henriquez, Katrina Stirn. Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, 1414 North Cameron Street, Second Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17103, toll-free 800-692-7443, TDD 717-346-0293, website www.drnpa.org. Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Council, Room 561 Forum Building, 605 South Drive, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120, toll-free 1-877-685-4452, TTY 717-705-0819, website www.paddc.org. This production is supported by a grant from the Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Council. Copyright 2013 Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Council. Permission to reprint, copy and distribute this work is granted provided that it is reproduced as a whole, distributed at no more than actual cost and displays this copyright notice. Any other reproduction is strictly prohibited.