MICHELLE UZETA: Hi everyone, this is Michelle Uzeta from DREDF. I am the Deputy Legal Director at the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. I'm a biracial woman with dark hair tied back in a ponytail. I'm wearing glasses and a black top. Welcome to Disability Access in California Courts. With me today as a co-presenter is Karma Quick-Panwala, the Director of Advocacy at Community Alliance for Special Education. A couple of housekeeping items before we get started. This is a Zoom webinar. All of the attendees are muted and cameras are disabled. There will be question and answer at the end of the webinar, time permitting. We do have live captioning and tech support available. I believe the captioning link is put in the chat. And if you have any difficulties, please chat with our tech support folks during the webinar. You can access the captioning by selecting show caption in the Zoom meeting control bar and to view the full transcript as well. And there's also a way to view captions in a web browser, and there is a link in the chat. It should be in the chat. There's also a drop- down menu to view things in English or Spanish. Again, if you experience any difficulties, please use the chat. The Q&A box is also open for questions that you might want us to address at the end of the presentation. Next slide. You can go ahead and forward one more. You can go ahead and forward one more. So the agenda today is quite simple, but we're covering a lot. We're going to talk briefly about the different laws that require court services programs and activities to be accessible. We're going to talk about how to request reasonable accommodations from the court and how to appeal them when they're denied. And then we're going to focus a little bit on effective communication in the courts. And Karma is also going to share some stories that she has as an advocate navigating that system of getting accommodations. Next slide, please. So first, it's important to understand why access to the court is particularly important for people with disabilities. The 2022 The Justice Gap Measurement Survey showed that 82% of low-income households with disabilities experienced at least one civil legal problem in the past year. 48% experienced at least five. And several of the top most burdensome civil legal problems, including employment discrimination, access to health care, disputes over benefits like SSI, poor working conditions. Those types of things are shown to disproportionately impact people with disabilities. People with disabilities are also overrepresented in the criminal justice system when compared to people without disabilities. For example, the rate of violent crimes against people with disabilities is estimated to be four times the rate for people without disabilities. And also approximately two in five, or 38% of people incarcerated in the state and federal prison system report having at least one disability. Next slide. Also, people with disabilities experience a range of disability-related barriers when they try to access the legal system. For example, court technology platforms that are not accessible to people who are blind. Courtrooms often lack physical access, like the witness or jury boxes are inaccessible or the courthouse itself has inaccessible entrances, parking, restrooms, et cetera. There's also the failure to accommodate, for example, allowing someone who uses a service animal into a courtroom or into the courthouse with that animal, things like that. And then there's often no effective communication and Karma is going to talk in more detail about that, but that includes the failure to provide captioning or sign language interpreters for court proceedings. All of these access concerns are compounded by stigmas that people with disabilities experience. For example, folks believing that people with disabilities are inherently not credible, or that they lack the ability to make decisions by themselves in their own legal matters, or that they don't deserve justice or redress for the harms that they experience. Next slide, please. So, looking at the laws and rules that require the California courts to be accessible, there's a couple of them. We're really just going to go over those quickly. The first would be the Americans with Disabilities Act and specifically Title II of the ADA, which covers public services. There's also California Government Code Section 11135, which covers state and state funded programs. There's the California Rule of Court 1. I'll just call it 1-100, that deals with courtroom accommodations. And then in some instances, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act is also in play if the court program receives federal financial assistance. Next slide. So, a little bit more about the ADA. It's a federal law applicable to all state and local government entities, so this would include the California courts. It prohibits the courts from excluding people with disabilities from participating in or benefiting from their services, programs, and activities, or from otherwise discriminating against people with disabilities. And the ADA is intended to ensure that all court users with disabilities have equal and full access to the court system. And this includes not only plaintiffs and defendants in a case, but also spectators of court proceedings, attorneys, witnesses, and jurors. And a person with a disability, for those who may be unfamiliar with how that's defined under the ADA, includes people who have a physical, or mental medical condition that limits one, or more major life activity, or that they have a record of such a condition, or are regarded as having such a condition. And examples of major life activities include walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, or caring for oneself. Next slide, please. Government Code 11135 is a California state law that prohibits discrimination based on disability by any program or activity that's conducted by the state or state agency, any program or activity that is funded directly by the state of California, and any program or activity that receives any financial assistance from the state. And this particular law incorporates by reference the protections and prohibitions contained in the ADA. So if you have a violation of the ADA, you're going to also have violation of 11135 when it comes to the courts. Rule 1.100 of the California rule of court is a rule that allows court participants with disabilities, again, this includes parties, lawyers, witnesses, and jurors, also participants, to request reasonable accommodations from the court. And it sets forth the policies and procedures of the court for requesting, processing, and appealing accommodation requests. Next slide, please. So, there are three things we want to focus on today that these authorities require. The first is physical access to facilities. The second is reasonable accommodations, and the third is effective communication. Next slide. So first, access to facilities. State courts, like any covered entity that is a public entity, is required to operate its services, programs, and activities so that they are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities when looked at in their entirety. So what does that mean, when looked at in their entirety? It means that they do not necessarily have to make sure that each of their existing facilities are accessible. So, not every courtroom has to be accessible. Not every bathroom in a courthouse needs to be accessible, but there needs to be enough accessibility that people with disabilities have access to the program as a whole. They sometimes refer to this as meaningful access. Meaningful access or program access does not require that the courts take any action that would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a historic property. That kind of exemption is pretty limited, and even if a building is a historic building, there are still accessibility changes that may need to be made to ensure program access for people with disabilities. Compliance can also be achieved through other methods like reassigning services to accessible buildings, delivery of services at alternative sites, alteration of existing facilities like building a ramp or striping a parking space, and the construction of new facilities. And those things that I've just been talking about really apply to existing facilities, which means facilities that existed before 1992, or when the ADA went into effect. Anything that's been newly constructed, or altered since then has to be designed to be accessible. And I've added a couple of resources here on physical accessibility. There are links to the ADA standards for accessible design, a link to the Access Board's publication called Designing Accessible Courthouses, and also a link to California's accessibility standards. Next slide, please. Moving on to reasonable accommodations. Courts have an affirmative obligation to provide reasonable accommodations to people with disabilities if necessary to avoid discrimination. A reasonable accommodation is a change to a policy practice or procedure that's necessary to avoid discrimination. Some examples of a change to a policy might be allowing someone with a service animal to enter the courthouse or the courtroom. It may also include changes to practices, or procedures such as reassigning a hearing to an accessible site or adjusting a court schedule. The court has the discretion to do that so long as legal deadlines are not missed, or the opposing party is not in some way prejudiced, and the provision of assisted devices, or services to ensure effective communication, such as captioning, ASL, assisted listening devices, or readers. Reasonable accommodations do not include accommodations of a strictly personal nature, like a personal care assistant to help with eating, or toileting, personal devices such as hearing aids, medication, personalized wheelchairs. And it also does not include a free lawyer, legal advice, paralegal, or things like transportation. When people were registering for this webinar, somebody had asked a question about facilitated communication, which is an accommodation that comes up every once in a while. And what I mean by that is it's a type of accommodation where someone provides either physical assistance, like supporting a person's arm, or emotional support by sitting directly next to someone while they type on a communication device, or otherwise communicate their answers or their needs. I'm not completely up to speed on how facilitated communication is currently being viewed by the courts. I did try to quickly look into it before this webinar. I do know that the technique has been criticized, both for lack of autonomy and for the potential that communications can be manipulated. But I also know that some courts do have programs in place to allow communicate what they call communication support to people with particularly challenging communication disabilities. And those programs can help with things like requesting that questions, or terminology be simplified into plain language, checking in with the person who's testifying or otherwise communicating about their level of understanding, assisting someone in requesting breaks when necessary, or somehow, you know, recognizing when the person needs to take a break and requesting that on their behalf, or using alternative means of communication, such as charts, diagrams, colored calendars, to assist people in communicating in that way to allow them to understand and access the court proceedings. There's a particular program in Oklahoma that I came across, and I will put a link to that in the chat as soon as I'm done with my part of the presentation. But I'd say if you have a client who requires that type of accommodation, go ahead and request it. It's, I guess, kind of luck of the draw, I guess, with the court that you're engaging with, whether or not you'll get an accommodation such as that. And I would assume it also depends on the importance or the nature of the proceeding. Next slide, please. So, when you're requesting case-related accommodations from the court, the California courts have a system in place for requesting accommodations for court cases. It may not be the most effective process, but they do have a process. The courts must have at least one ADA coordinator to handle accommodation requests, and they're supposed to make the name of that person available to the public. Requests can be made by calling and asking the ADA coordinator for that accommodation by sending a letter to the ADA coordinator, or oftentimes an email will be provided. You should be able to email them as well. Or you can fill out form MC-410, which is a judicial counsel form entitled "Request for Disability Accommodation." And I've provided a link to that form in the slides. And just to let people know, you'll get a copy of the slides after this presentation. Accommodations can also be requested in open court, though that's not preferable. The court can handle the request in open court, but they first have to ask the requestor if it's okay, and they waive confidentiality. And if the requesting person does not waive confidentiality, the court needs to recess and address the request in chambers. I know from personal experience this does not happen and the court will often go into detail, oftentimes on the record, about someone's accommodation. That is not supposed to happen. So if that is coming up in one of your cases, you need to interject and ask the court to recess due to confidentiality concerns. and ask the court to recess due to confidentiality concerns. The court must address the request without an evidentiary hearing or the use of a court reporter, and it's not supposed to be made part of the case file. The court can also kick the question to the ADA coordinator and kind of continue proceedings while it's taken care of in that way. Next slide, please. Some practice tips on requesting accommodations. You should request your accommodations in as far as it, sorry, as far in advance as possible. Can't stress this enough. It helps ensure that your request is fully considered. The ADA coordinator may need to get additional information from you that was not included in your request. And that allows, you know, if you ask in advance, it allows them time to engage with you on that. It also helps ensure that there's sufficient time to arrange the accommodation. There are shortages of CART providers, ASL interpreters, and sometimes it takes a couple of days to arrange for those services to be provided. When you're requesting your accommodation, especially if you're not using the Judicial Council form, you need to make sure that you include the date and the time, the case number and type of case that you're asking for accommodations for, the reason why you need the accommodation related to your disability, and any other information about the request that you believe is important. Both the California Rule of Port 1.100 and the Judicial Council form say to request accommodations at least five days in advance. It's important to remember that this is not a bright line cutoff for requests that would conflict with the ADA. Requests must be considered and fully considered regardless of when the request is made. Oftentimes, and Karma will address this when she's talking, you don't have five days when you get notice of something that's happening in the next couple of days or something's continued to the next day and you don't have five days to give notice. Courts cannot say, sorry, you didn't give us five days notice, so we're not providing the accommodation. They need to kind of scramble to see if they can provide the accommodation that you need. It's also important to document and make a request or make a record of your request. So if you're making your request by phone or by email, take notes, keep copies of the emails, what number you called, what time you called, the name of the person you spoke to, write down exactly what was said, all of that. It's important to keep those records. And I'd say that if you're able to, it's best to use the MC-410 form, the Judicial Council form, because it asks all the questions and prompts you to provide all the information that's really necessary for this type of request. Next slide, please. After a request is made, there's a couple of things that could happen. First, the court may grant the requested accommodation in whole, which is great, or in part, not so great. The court may also offer an alternative accommodation. It's important to remember that the court's obligation is to provide an accommodation that will allow effective participation in the court's services, programs, and activities. They do not necessarily have to provide you with what you want. Their only obligation, again, is to provide something that's effective in allowing you to have full access. A little bit different in the effective communication context, the regulations that have to do specifically with effective communication expressly require that the court give primary consideration to the specific accommodation that is requested by the person with this disability. And this is because they recognize that a person with a communication disability is going to know best what works for them in terms of an accommodation. If the alternative suggested by the court is not effective for you, you need to ask for review or appeal. For example, if you are someone who uses captioning as an accommodation for your disability and the court says well we won't provide captioning, but we'll provide ASL and you're not someone who's fluent in ASL that's not going to be an effective communication for you, that's not going to provide effective communication for you it would be akin to saying I need Spanish interpretation, and they say well we won't provide Spanish, but we'll provide you with French. Doesn't work. So, you need to push back on that. Next slide, please. The court may also deny the accommodation and they can do that for a few reasons. First, that the request does not meet the requirements of Rule-1.100. For example, you don't give full information, you don't have a disability, that type of thing. They can also deny the accommodation if it would present an undue financial, or administrative burden on the court. So if you know and when they're looking at that, they're looking at the total finances of the court system, their ability to administratively deal with whatever you're asking for. I wouldn't think that that comes up too often, but I could be wrong. And then the third reason is that the accommodation requested fundamentally alters the nature of the court service program or activity. And that is probably the reason sometimes where facilitated communication might be denied if they're thinking that people aren't able to give their own testimony or their communications can be manipulated, that would be the kind of thing that might be denied based on fundamental alteration. And then also the court must communicate the reasons for the denial to you in writing, and that writing will trigger your right to appeal. Next slide. Challenging and accommodation denial. This is where we get a lot of questions and complaints. And as you will see in the next couple of slides, it's because the process is ridiculously unfavorable to people with disabilities, and there is misinformation, or at least inconsistent information, provided in different ways by the courts to the public. First, the California Rule of Court 1.100 this is what the rule says. If the denial of accommodation is by non-judicial personnel, which would include an ADA coordinator, the person with the disability is to submit a written request for review to the presiding judge or the designated judicial officer within days. Most people are not going to know what the presiding judge, or the designated judicial officer is. The rule does not help you figure that out. If the denial is made by your judge, or another judicial officer, you need to file a petition for writ of mandate in the appropriate reviewing court, which could be the appellate division, or the court of appeal, within days. Very short timelines. And again, nothing in the rule helps your average reader understand what this means. Next slide, please. Materials from the Judicial Council, which are specifically marketed to the public, are inconsistent and confusing. The MC-410 form just refers people to California Rule of Court-1.100. They also have a brochure that's entitled, and this is available on the court's website, I provide a link there, a brochure entitled "Disability Accommodations in California Courts." That brochure states that if the request was denied by a court staff person, again, this would include non-judicial staff like the ADA coordinator, that the requester must give the ADA coordinator or the court a letter objecting to the denial within days. So, that's a little bit different. So, instead of going to the presiding judge or judicial officer, you can go back to the ADA coordinator. Okay, the rule doesn't say that, but the judicial counsel form does. It also states that the 10 day timeline starts on the date the denial was delivered in person, or the date that it was mailed. And there's no way to get additional time. So, if the court ADA coordinator mails your denial, and it doesn't arrive to you until five days later, you only have five days to find an attorney and appeal, not great. Next slide, please. Our office did a survey of Superior Court websites to see what kind of information was provided with regard to accommodations and specifically with regard to how to appeal them, because that's where a lot of the issues come up. We found that most of the Superior Court websites, and we again, we looked at all counties in California, most of them provide a link to the Judicial Council form, the MC-410 form. Some of them reference or provide a link to the California Rule of Court 1.100. A few provide the link to the Judicial Counsel's Disability Accommodations in California Courts brochure. Not all provide contact information for the ADA coordinator, but most do. None of them provide sample requests for review or for appeal or sample writ. None of them provide information about how to contact the presiding judge or what a presiding judge is, and none of them provide information about how to get help or guidance on writs. Very few advise people of the 10 day period within which case-related denials of accommodations must be appealed, and some of them confuse readers by referring to their general ADA grievance policies on the page having to do with court accommodations, and those policies will reference either a 30 or 60 day timeline for filing grievances, and or outline a different informal review, or reconsideration process. So, it's very easy for someone to get confused looking at these websites, at these resources, especially when they don't tell you about the 10 day period within which you need to ask for review or appeal, but they have something there that says, well, you can file a grievance or a complaint within 30 or 60 days. A lot of people are not going to meet that timeline because the information is just inconsistent, confusing, missing. So, it is really difficult. Next slide, please. Almost wrapping up here. I did provide some links to examples of court, the information that's on a couple of the Superior Court websites. In Yuba County, for example, there's a link to the MC-410 form, nothing on Rule 1.100. This particular county has a link to their general grievance policy, which has a 60 day timeline for filing complaints, but provides nothing to advise people of the 10 day timeline for accommodation appeals. The Napa County Superior Court website only references their general ADA grievance process. It has nothing on the 10 day timeline. Next slide, please. Shasta County provides no links to the Judicial Council Form or Rule 1.100, doesn't provide any information about the ADA coordinator. References a right to appeal accommodation request, but doesn't note the 10 day timeline or any details about that. And then lastly, the San Benito County Superior Court provides no information about appeals or reviews whatsoever. And this is just a handful. Most of them have problems like this. There wasn't I don't think there was one that, in my view, did it correctly. And again, none of them provide any kind of sample how you ask for a review, a sample letter for asking for review, a sample writ, who can you contact for assistance with writs. So, people just don't have that information. Next slide. And this is my last slide. The result of all of this misinformation or incomplete information is the process that highly disfavors people with disabilities. DREDF would like to hear your stories as advocates in the community with assisting people in these types of situations, and the barriers that they've run into. So I encourage people to reach out to me, either if, you know, one, you want to participate in that advocacy or you have stories to share. And many of you already have my contact information, but my email is on this slide for you to contact me if you want to engage on that. Thank you and I will pass it over to Karma.

KARMA QUICK-PANWALA: Hey, good afternoon everyone. I'm Karma Quick-Panwala. I'm the Director of Advocacy for the Community Alliance for Special Education. But one of the reasons I'm here with all of you today is I myself am deaf, and I have a lot of experience doing effective communication cases. I also have some experience being a plaintiff in some of those cases. So, I wanted to run through effective communication in the courts because that is such an area of significant need, both for training and information, and just getting these accommodations and going through the processes as Michelle just went over. So, let's get going. Next slide, please. So, what is effective communication, and why is it important? People who have vision and hearing or speech disabilities, that's what we're talking about with communication disabilities, we all have very different ways to communicate. There is a saying that if you know one person with autism, you know one person with autism. Likewise, if you know one person who is deaf, you know one person who is deaf, and they will not necessarily communicate in the same way. Effective communication is communication that allows a person with a vision, hearing, or speech disability to communicate with, receive information from, and convey information to a covered entity like the courts. Effective communication is absolutely essential to ensuring equal access to and use of the court services, programs, and activities. After all, if one is a participant in a hearing or in a trial, you cannot participate, you cannot get access unless you can communicate. And in addition to that, I would also add language to effective communication because language itself and having language is the fundamentals of communication, it's the foundation upon which we build our ability to communicate. So, making sure that the people who are accessing the courts have access to effective communication and also language is something that we really, really need to be looking at when we're ensuring that everyone who needs to be a part of access to the courts, a hearing, a trial, any sort of proceeding, they have that opportunity to participate and to understand what is happening. Next slide, please. So, what do disability rights laws say about effective communication? The ADA, and especially Title II, because we're talking public entities here, provides that public entities must take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with people with disabilities are as effective as communications with others, and specifically non-disabled people. Okay, so this applies to the California courts because they are a public entity and therefore covered under Title II of the ADA. I'm gonna throw in one more fact right here that while we're focusing on California courts, there is a Supreme Court case on point called Tennessee versus Lane, L-A-N-E, Tennessee versus Lane, and it was decided by the United States Supreme Court in 2004. So, the right to effective communication extends to all people with communication disabilities involved in the court proceedings, parties, witnesses, lawyers, jurors, and spectators. The Supreme Court in Tennessee versus Lane found that access to our courts is a fundamental right of access under the 40th Amendment. And so that means that anyone, including members of the public, have the right to access the courts. Next slide. So, what steps does the court have to take? The courts have to provide people with disabilities with auxiliary aids and services where necessary to give them an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the court's services, programs, and activities. And regardless of the person's role in that proceeding, even if it is as a witness, every bit of information is crucial. And if it can be understood by a person who is not disabled, it should also be understood by the person with a disability. Of course, there would be an exception for sidebars taking place up at the court unless it isn't one of the attorneys in the proceeding who needs access to communication at that point. Next slide. What are examples of auxiliary aids and services? Here is a list of some of the most common communication accommodations that we see in courts and society today. Qualified interpreters on-site or through video remote interpreting, VRI services, and by interpreters, qualified ASL interpreters, qualified oral interpreters, just like you want your language interpreters to be qualified, ASL should be as well. And with ASL, you can also have certified deaf interpreters, CDI, because that is going to provide more of a natural or primary language within the Deaf community to the person who is Deaf. This is most common with people who are uppercase D Deaf, culturally Deaf and raised in the Deaf community, and then also another ASL hearing ASL interpreter along with them. Notetakers, written materials and exchange of written notes, assistive listening devices and systems. This is one that's very common and almost every courtroom I've been into assumes that this sort of device is going to work, but it doesn't. And this is, again, is why there's that primary consideration that Michelle discussed earlier. Open and closed captioning, including real-time captioning. This is one that today is very, very popular. And as most of you know, we're here on Zoom. Zoom has its own captioning. I really want to take a moment and discuss this just a little bit because this is a huge point of contention for a lot of people in the deaf and hard of hearing community. And many people who are not familiar with tech and accommodations are not as familiar with the terminology, and how effective these technologies are in providing access to communication. Zoom and Microsoft Teams are being used by courts up and down the state and across the country to allow for greater access to the courts, especially after the pandemic. And when the pandemic erupted and we all of a sudden needed effective communication, a lot of these tech companies, Zoom, Google, Microsoft, any other video conferencing platform, turned to AI and used AI, which was already in the works, to create something called automatic speech recognition. So when you turn on the captions on Zoom, or you turn on the captions in Microsoft Teams, or on Google Meet, what you are seeing is automatic speech recognition. It is not the same thing as CART. We have captioning here today with Lisa. Lisa is providing CART, and Lisa is a human captioner rather than artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has an accuracy rate of anywhere between 70% and 85%. So, when we are looking at relying on those captions to understand what is being said around us, we are missing out on a great deal of speech. We are also missing out on any environmental sounds that might inform us as to the conversation. If something happens in the background, the automatic speech recognition is not going to put that up. So whatever might have been said, if there was laughter, what have you, the person who needs the captioning is going to miss that completely because the automatic speech recognition only picks up speech. The accuracy rate for CART is at least 95 to 100%. So, when we're looking at making sure that we get something like CART services in place for a program for which there is already an established constitutional right, it is so important that we're looking not just at the primary preference of that person, but what is actually effective communication. Because I think anyone would be hard-pressed to find that effective communication has an accuracy rate of 75 to 85% versus 95 to 100%. So, it's important to make some of these distinctions and really understand the types of effective communication accommodations that we are requesting. Continuing on with this list, voice, text and video based telecommunications like TTYs, video phones, caption telephones. Those are also reasonable accommodation requests. Video text displays, other methods of making early delivered information available to individuals who are deaf, or hard of hearing hearing such as oral interpreters. Many of us who are deaf or hard of hearing were trained to lip read when we were growing up. It was part of my IEP when I was five or six years old. And one thing that can happen is for an interpreter to sit in front of me and just mouth what is being said. However, if you ever have the chance to do that, you will find very quickly it's an exhausting way to communicate. For people who are blind or low vision, the column on the right side in front of you gives us a list of very, very common accommodations for people who are blind or low vision. Qualified readers, taped text that they can listen to and audio recordings along with that, brailled materials and displays, but remember this only works for people who know how to read braille, screen reader software, magnification software, secondary auditory programs, large print materials, accessible electronic and information technology, and so forth. And what's really important here is that as we're looking at the ways in which our courts need to be accessible, we need to make sure that the website itself is accessible and that the website complies with Section 508 and the WCAGs, which I'm forgetting what that stands for in the moment, but making sure that those websites are not only compatible with screen reader software, but all of the content that is posted, like photos, maps, or any other documents that are in PDF format, for example, or a chart that is listed, especially if it's a chart of the judges and courtrooms, and what kinds of hearings or information are currently being had there. All of that information has to be equally accessible and must be effectively communicated to any individual who needs access to the courts. Next slide. Case-by-case determination. As I said earlier, you know one person with autism, you know one person with autism. Every person who comes to the courts is going to require an accommodation for a different reason. The way disability hits all of us is different from one person to the next, and we have different preferences in how we communicate. Therefore, the type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication will vary from situation to situation. So, we need to think about the person's regular method of communication. Does someone communicate primarily in ASL, or in spoken English? We need to consider the nature, the length, and the complexity of communication. For example, watching the trial from the galley is going to be different than being the witness on the witness stand. The context in which the communication is taking place, is it just a sit down with an attorney back and forth, or is it an opening statement, or is it a closing statement, what have you. To be effective, the auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats in a timely manner and in a way that protects the privacy, and independence of the individual with a disability. Now for it to be effective and especially equally effective communication, the timeliness is a key piece because it's one thing to be in the room when it happens, but if we're getting the information about the conversation that took place two or three minutes later, we're not getting information at the same rate as the non-disabled people are. So, that's something that's so incredibly important to understand is information in that moment. Next slide, please. Primary consideration. Michelle touched on this earlier, and I really want to come back and hit on it again. In determining what types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, the courts must give primary consideration to the specific aid or service requested by the individual with a disability. Courts must honor the disabled person's choice unless the courts can demonstrate that another equally effective means of communication is available or that the request would result in the fundamental alteration or in an undue burden. For example, if the court has to spend way too much money, or they're taking time away from an administrator on their regular duties and they have to spend more time on the accommodation than anything else, that's where we would say it's an undue administrative burden because, and the court would have the right to provide another, or an alternative aid or service that provides effective communication if available. Next slide. So, effective communication in the federal district courts. The ADA and Section 504 do not apply to the federal judiciary. Those are laws that in the ADA in particular applies to state and local public entities. But the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the Courts has adopted a policy that all federal courts will provide reasonable accommodations to persons with communications disabilities. So, the federal court policy requires that federal courts provide sign language interpreters, or other appropriate auxiliary aids and services at no charge to people who are deaf or hard of hearing and participants of the court. And federal court policy allows for federal courts to decide whether to provide accommodations for court spectators who are deaf and hard of hearing. And these guidelines are published on the guide to judiciary policies and procedures. The link is right there for you to view. The next slide, please. Okay, I'm going to take a sip of water here because we're about to get into it. I was thrilled, very thrilled and privileged to work with Michelle Uzeta on my own case regarding access to the courts. And this case took place largely, we filed it in but the instances of denial happened largely between and itself. So, obviously, the statute of limitations in California for disability discrimination under the ADA is roughly two years. And we were able to include quite a few instances of discrimination, but it was really interesting how this all came together. And one of the reasons I want to tell this story is it goes to show that you can have all the knowledge in the world and all the experience in the world, and this discrimination still exists, no matter how very clear it is made that what is taking place is not right, and it's blatant discrimination. I went to law school and graduated from New College of California Law in 2008. I'd had quite a bit of discrimination already, just trying to get accommodations in law school. I used CART services throughout law school and came to rely heavily on the accommodation. It's still my primary and preferred method of effective communication today. While I was in law school, I got involved with the National Association of Law Students with Disabilities, which is now the National Disabled Law Students Association. And we did quite a bit of work around just broadening awareness of access to the courts, access to the legal profession, access to law school at a very, very high level across the country. When I took the bar exam, the California Bar denied my accommodations on the very first time that I took it and went on to take the bar a number of times unsuccessfully, which is why I'm not an attorney today. And I am now working in special education advocacy. So, I'm still in the field of law, and still very much using all of the knowledge, and skills that I've gained. Back in 2010 and actually shortly thereafter, while I was going through the bar process, I worked for the San Francisco Mayor's Office on Disability. And the Mayor's Office on Disability is the City and County of San Francisco's ADA Compliance Office. What we did was provide technical assistance on Title II of the ADA to city and county agencies and employees throughout San Francisco, especially when complaints were made to our office on denials of accommodation, or lack of access or anything of the like. And we would also work with these agencies and train them and provide trainings on ADA and the right of access in public space. And also, to an extent, some disability cultural competency along with that, because awareness is a crucial part to understanding why access is necessary. So, with all of this experience and knowing Title II of the ADA like the back of my hand, and especially those effective communication regulations, I felt confident going into making requests for accommodations out in society, including the courts. For a number of months, and actually up to a couple of years, I was attending a few proceedings within the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco at Bryant here in San Francisco. If you're familiar with San Francisco's court system and the way we are set up, we have a criminal courthouse at 850 Bryant. We have a civil courthouse at 400 McAllister. We have a juvenile justice center at 350 Woodside. And then we have a couple other very small courtrooms like for the care courts or I think there's a drug court and a few other dependency court and that sort of thing. So I was attending proceedings at 850 Bryant, and they were ranging from opening statements, homicide trials, closing statements, a number of things. And as soon as I knew that I was going to that proceeding, I was able to find the information for the ADA coordinator online, at least SF Superior's website had that information, and it was able to email a request for accommodations, namely CART services. The answer came back no, and they held that five-day rule, and Rule 1.100 as a bright line. And I wrote back and I said, well, you know, I appreciate that. However, even though rule says that, the ADA has no requirement in it. A public entity must still at least consider the request and make a reasonable attempt to provide the accommodation. So, I'm going to reiterate my request for the accommodation. Of course, I provided all of the other pertinent information, the judge, the courtroom, the case number, the case title, and my role as a spectator in that particular proceeding. And it still came back now. So, I realized something was probably going on here. I wasn't going to let that first denial deter me from requesting accommodations. Having been to law school, knowing my rights, having worked for the mayor's office on disability, and having done all of this work, made me truly ingrained in that this is my right of access. And if anything, I was just going to continue documenting that we had an issue with the courts and the courts were truly not accessible to people with disabilities. So over a number of times, I requested court services when I knew I was heading to court. And for the greatest extent possible, I would request them as soon as I knew I was going. For those of you who do litigation, you know, that not everything can be determined you determine right away if you're in a trial you don't know the exact date and time of closing statements until the defense completes their case in chief and other administrative matters might be addressed. So, as soon as I knew the closing argument might be scheduled, I'd make the request. But by the time it was officially scheduled by the courts, it was only 24 hours the day before. And the court at 850 Bryant held that as a bright line. They denied it because I hadn't made my request for a hearing or a closing argument that had not been scheduled five days in advance. They denied it because hours was not enough time for them to provide the accommodation. Again, absolutely not true. So, we continued on to document all of these requests. The court actually had a form letter that it started sending me. By the time we got around to filing the lawsuit in 2014, we had at least instances of denial. And at least five of those instances were denied with the same letter saying that I was welcome to bring my own CART provider. And I had to give at least one week's notice that the person would be coming. At one point, they wanted one week's notice they could inspect for safety and security purposes. One other thing I want to go back and say about Title II and those effective communication regulations, we didn't cover this earlier, but those regulations are very explicit that a public entity cannot require a person with a disability to provide their own accommodation. And it cannot provide any restrictions on purposes of safety and security. So, being able to use those regulations and throw them up there at least was a way for me to document all of the violations that the court was engaging in denying these disability accommodations. So, ultimately we were able to get a number of denials from the staff at Bryant. We had a couple of denials of accommodation at the Juvenile Justice Center and one denial of accommodation at 400 McAllister. And the totality of those instances led us to realize that across the entire San Francisco Superior Court system, we were coming up with a denial of access to the courts in total. So, there was a court case in federal court. The Superior Court tried to dismiss the case with the 12v6. And then it led to a settlement right away. It was very clear that the court was not going to entertain any attempt to dismiss the case. But one of the great results of filing in federal court and getting a settlement is that San Francisco Superior Court was required to overhaul some of their policies, provide training to some staff. And they also had to publish all of this information about accommodations, requesting accommodations, the form, policies and procedures, links to rule all of that information on their website. And it all had to be accessible. So, one of the reasons I did want to continue exercising my right to access the courts, and so forth was just to make sure that at the end of the day we had a chance to change the policies of the courts, and if you are experiencing any of this I really encourage you to document all of this experience, use email as much as possible, even if it's form MC-410, and to make sure that you communicate with DREDF especially, and with someone who's knowledgeable about access to the courts and the right of access for effective communication under Title II of the ADA. Thank you.

MICHELLE UZETA: Thanks again, everybody. We have one question in the Q&A and two minutes left. So this is a question, I think, for Karma, if you want to address it. The question is, how do we get the court interpreter coordinators, meaning I guess the ADA coordinators, to start using appropriate terminology by calling capital D deaf interpreters as ASL interpreters too? Secondly, first appearances, we need to provide both capital D deaf and hearing interpreters. It is a necessary accommodation. Some courts practice that already, but not all of the courts.

KARMA QUICK-PANWALA: Really, really good questions. And these are getting into the nuances of effective communication that not a lot of people are familiar with. A lot of. I know the first part, Deaf interpreters versus ASL interpreters, a lot of it is just simply making sure that court staff are trained, or have cultural competency trainings. This is something that we really try to push through the Judicial Council, for example. It's something that I've been able to get out of with a settlement after a lawsuit, but a lot of it, too, is just in the day in and day out of communicating with the courts to say, the correct terminology is an ASL interpreter. Please use that going forward. That is what the request says. We're not requesting a deaf interpreter, we're requesting an ASL interpreter. And then, and for, in terms of appearances, there's very, very little is known about the certified deaf interpreters, CDIs, or certified interpreters of the deaf. It's so important for communication. And this is why I mentioned language earlier, because ASL, as many people use it a bit more broadly, is different than ASL that is used within the deaf community, the uppercase D deaf community. There are different signs, there's a different grammatical syntax. It's just a different way of using ASL than ASL is used more broadly or even more formally. So, when you have some people within the Deaf community, they are going to prefer, it's going to be their primary method of communication using a certified interpreter of the deaf who understands a little bit more of the cultural context and how some of the signs are used. But that certified deaf interpreter also needs the ASL, the hearing ASL interpreter, and then can change the signs, change the structure and the grammar or the body language that is used within that. So, a lot of it is really emphasizing that with a hearing ASL interpreter, you are omitting so much of the language that the deaf person needs in order to have equally effective communication. And by really emphasizing that point, that the ASL interpreter is, a hearing ASL interpreter is not enough. We really have to push for language access as well as communication access. So, there was sort of an extra layer of communication access not happening without the certified interpreter of the deaf. I hope that answers the question.

MICHELLE UZETA: Thank you, Karma. I think you did. Thanks, everybody, for tuning in and appreciate you all. Have a great day.