This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Rehabilitation Act of 1973

American Council of the Blind v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Published: Jan. 1, 2010 | Result Date: Oct. 20, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 3:05-cv-04696 Bench Decision –  Liability

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Arlene B. Mayerson
(Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund Inc.)

Henry C. Su


Defendant

Marsha S. Edney
(Office of the Comptroller of the Currency)


Facts

The American Council of the Blind and representative plaintiffs, Scarlett Miles and others, brought a class action suit against the Social Security Administration (SSA) for only offering essential program information by telephone and failing to offer a menu of alternative formats for obtaining the information. The plaintiffs alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the Due Process Clause.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs contended that the SSA's practice of sending notices in standard print deprived plaintiffs, including applicants, beneficiaries, recipients, and representative payees, of equal access to essential program information they needed to maintain their benefits. Although a telephone call reading was allegedly provided, it cannot fully or effectively communicate complex information from the SSA to its beneficiaries. Thus, around three million visually impaired beneficiaries risked having their benefits suspended or terminated for failure to comply with SSA demands because they could not read notices and program rules in an accessible format.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The SSA contended that the telephone program provided plaintiffs with meaningful and effective access to the SSA program. Individuals could ask questions on the telephone calls to ensure understanding of information. Also, the SSA was under no obligation to give "equal results" to the plaintiffs, only "meaningful access," which requires the plaintiffs to be provided equal opportunity to the same results as other beneficiaries. The defendants satisfied this requirement. The plaintiffs could also call a toll free number to ask questions or have the notices re-read to them over the phone. Providing alternative formats would place undue financial and administrative burdens which the law does not require. Under the Rehabilitation Act, the SSA only had to make reasonable accommodations, which it did. Additionally, the SSA's notice policy satisfies Fifth Amendment due process requirements because it is reasonably calculated to apprise plaintiffs of any suspensions, terminations, and other actions affecting their SSA benefits.

Damages

The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief.

Result

The court returned a verdict for the plaintiffs on the Rehabilitation Act claim, finding that the SSA should provide two additional options for class members to receive notices: Braille and a CD contained in Word-formatted documentation. Also, the SSA had to develop a process to consider individual requests for additional formats if these options did not provide effective communication. The court found for defendant on the due process claim.


#84287

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390