[blindlaw] Advice Request

[Ray Wayne]

Joe:
I am one in the same.  In fact, it was my secretary who gave you the
instruction.  The New York City Commission on Human Rights, for which I
work, could investigate the incident you describe in New York City, but not
the one in D.C.  I will certainly be glad to talk with you about it.  D.C.
has its own Human Rights agency, though I do not know its exact name.  I
have no idea how effective either it or DOJ are.  I will call you tomorrow.
Ray Wayne
PS:  i checked their WEB site--do the buses really have plush reclining
seats and TV/VCR's?  I cannot recall if it said the restrooms were clean or
had working sinks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Orozco" <jsorozco at gmail.com>
To: "Blind Law" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:29 AM
Subject: [blindlaw] Advice Request


>     If anyone has suggestions on how to proceed, please send me your
> thoughts and suggestions.  I recently contacted the New York City Human
> Rights Commission and was told to fax the information below to a Mr. Ray
> Wayne.  I believe I've heard of him before on this list, assuming I am
> talking about the same attorney.  But any suggestions would be welcomed.
> The information follows:
>
>
>
> Jahinnslerth (Joe) Orozco
>
> 1265 Newton Street Ne.
>
> Washington DC 20017
>
>
>
> Tuesday, January 2, 2007
>
>
>
> To whom it may concern:
>
>
>
> The following occurred both in Washington DC on December 31, 2006 and in
New
> York City on January 1, 2007.  In both cases I used the same bus service
> called Today's Bus.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 31, 2006, I left for a trip from Washington DC to New
> York City with four traveling companions.  I attempted to board the 9:30
AM
> bus using Today's Bus service at 610 I St NW, but was told by the bus
driver
> and station employee I could not board because of my Seeing Eye dog, a
> four-year-old German Shepherd.  They insisted the best they could do was
to
> put the dog beneath the bus with the rest of the luggage.  I explained to
> them the nature of my service animal, but they would not budge and laughed
> when I threatened to contact the police.  Finally, I did contact the DC
> police, and it was not until an officer explained to the station employee
> that guide dogs were allowed on public buses that the driver allowed me to
> board.  We had waited nearly half an hour before the situation was
resolved.
> Before leaving, I explained to the station employee that I would be
> returning to Washington DC the following day.
>
>
>
> The following day, January 1, 2007, I planned to return from New York City
> to Washington DC, this time traveling with one other companion.  The
tickets
> were purchased at 13 Allen Street, where we were told to walk two blocks
to
> pick up the bus.  I attempted to board the 5:00 PM bus using the same
> service at 88 East Broadway between Forsyth Street and Division Street.  I
> missed the first available bus because a female employee said the dog
could
> not accompany me on the bus.  Again, I attempted to explain the nature of
> the guide dog and was repeatedly told the dog could not get on board.  At
> one point this same female employee snatched our tickets from my traveling
> companion and gave her back our money.  I called 311, was put through to
> 911, who dispatched a police unit to the scene.  A male employee finally
> said he would help us get on the next available bus to DC, because he
> understood the dog was a mobility tool.  The female employee and two other
> coworkers vehemently opposed this idea and wanted to block our entrance
when
> the next bus arrived.  In the end, we were allowed to board the bus before
> all the other passengers but were told we would have to sit at the very
back
> of the bus so that the dog would not bother the other passengers.  Since
the
> police had not yet arrived, my friend and I took the opportunity to leave
> New York since our trip had already been postponed by almost an hour and
the
> situation was all around a draining one.  I can provide the bus number and
> USDOT number of this bus upon request.
>
>
>
> The situations were parallel in nature.  In both instances, my traveling
> companions and I had purchased tickets before we attempted to board the
> buses.  In both cases, I produced the identification card from the Seeing
> Eye to show that my dog was an official service animal.  The dog was in
> harness and wore appropriate tags showing his guide dog status.  I assured
> them that the dog would ride beneath my seat and that he would not bother
> anyone because he was properly trained and because I demand excellent
> behavior of him.  In both instances I was excluded from communication
> between the employees because I could not understand the Chinese dialogue.
> The only thing they clearly conveyed in English was that the dog would not
> be allowed to get on board the bus.
>
>
>
> When I arrived in DC, I attempted to speak to the station employee on
duty.
> This was approximately at 11:00 PM on Monday night.  The employee
> continuously avoided me, choosing instead to talk to other passengers
about
> their tickets, even when it was my turn in line at the desk.  Even after I
> managed to catch his attention the best he could do was to tell me to call
> the main office.  He himself never gave me the phone number to the main
> office.  The impression he gave was that he did not want to be bothered
with
> the situation despite the fact that passengers and bus drivers for the
> company were standing by were also attempting to explain to him the
problem.
>
>
>
> Early this afternoon, Tuesday, January 2, at approximately 12:45 PM I
> finally found a number to Mr. Ming Yu at what I believe is the company's
> main office.  He said the company is within its right to refuse service if
> the dog is not restrained or restricted from harming other customers.  I
> pointed out the dog was in harness, on a leash, wearing a pincher collar
and
> had the station employees asked, I could have placed a muzzle on the dog
> even though I am not obligated to do so and even though the dog at no
point
> in either trip made any indication of harming other people.  He said I
> should have made prior arrangements to notify the company that a dog would
> be traveling on one of their vehicles.  Nowhere on their web site is this
> policy laid forth.  I have used a number of other bus services and
airlines,
> and I have never been required to give advance notice of my guide dog's
> traveling schedule.  He also said that because of the company's small
size,
> it could not possibly train its employees to be informed of the laws
> governing the accessibility of disabled passengers.  The law remains in
> effect regardless of an employee's training.  I should certainly hope that
a
> company operating across several state and local jurisdictions would be
> well-versed in the federal mandates at minimal.
>
>
>
> Based on the course of events, the case leaves itself open for direct
legal
> action.  The company made an unnecessary nuisance of boarding the bus on
two
> separate occasions.  I would have thought that after the company was told
in
> DC that it is legal for guide dogs to travel on their vehicles, that the
> company would have communicated the information to their New York station,
> especially after I specifically told the DC station employees that I would
> be utilizing their service to make the return trip the following day.
> Although the company allowed me to ride in both instances, the permission
> was granted on a conditional basis.  There is no justification whatsoever
> for making me ride in the back seat of the bus when every seat on the bus
> was available at the time we boarded the vehicle.  Separation most
certainly
> does not mean equality, as has been historically proven.  The company
> representatives do not appear to understand their legal responsibilities,
> and I am not at all confident that future guide dog users will have a
better
> experience when using this service.  I have not been given any proof that
> the company will change its position to avoid this situation from
happening
> in the future.  I have no proof that word of this situation has been
> transmitted to the company's Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia stations.
>
>
>
> The specific law violations are as follow:
>
>
>
> 1. On a federal level, the company was in violation of Title II Sec. 221
of
> the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 S. 933:
>
>
>
> (1) Demand responsive system.--The term "demand responsive system" means
any
> system of providing designated public transportation which is not a fixed
> route system.
>
> (2) Designated public transportation.--The term "designated public
> transportation" means transportation (other than public school
> transportation) by bus, rail, or any other conveyance (other than
> transportation by aircraft or intercity or commuter rail transportation
(as
> defined in section 241)) that provides the general public with general or
> special service (including charter service) on a regular and continuing
> basis.
>
> (3) Fixed route system.--The term "fixed route system" means a system of
> providing designated public transportation on which a vehicle is operated
> along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule.
>
> (4) Operates.--The term "operates", as used with respect to a fixed route
> system or demand responsive system, includes operation of such system by a
> person under a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with a
> public entity.
>
>
>
> http://www.ada.gov
>
>
>
> Under the ADA and its implementing regulation, the right of a blind person
> to be accompanied by a dog guide in places that serve the public is
> guaranteed. Section 36.104 of Title 3 specifies that "service animals,"
> which include dog guides, are covered by the statute. The right of a blind
> person to be accompanied by a dog guide is guaranteed and the term "public
> accommodation" is also defined under this provision.
>
>
>
> http://www.seeingeye.org/ResourceCenter.asp?sc=dg#3
>
>
>
> 2. Also on a federal level, by refusing service unless I rode at the back
of
> the bus, away from other passengers, the situation is reminiscent of prior
> violations which would fall under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of
1964:
>
>
>
> SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
enjoyment
> of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and
> accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this
> section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race,
color,
> religion, or national origin.
>
>
>
> SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment
or
> place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of
race,
> color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation
> is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
> rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.
>
>
>
> http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
>
>
>
> 3. In DC, the company has violated the Human Rights Act of 1977:
>
>
>
> Human Rights Act of 1977, Title 6, Chapter 22; Title 6, Chapter 17,
Sections
> 6-1701 through 6-1709 District of Columbia law guarantees a blind person
the
> legal right to be accompanied by a specially trained dog guide in its
public
> buildings and its public facilities, and in all public accommodations and
on
> all public conveyances. The right to equal accommodation in all housing
also
> is guaranteed to a dog guide user. No additional charge can be levied
> because of the dog's presence, but the dog guide user is liable for any
> damage the dog may cause to the premises. Landlords are not required to
> modify the premises, nor are they responsible for maintaining a higher
> degree of care than that provided other tenants. With the exception of the
> federal government, the District of Columbia prohibits all employers,
> including its own various branches, from employment discrimination because
> of blindness or visual impairment. Public accommodations include hotels,
> restaurants, stores, places of resort and amusement, and all other places
to
> which the general public is invited. (Sect. 6-1702, Sect. 6-2202, Sect.
> 6-2241) Public conveyances include boats, trains, buses, streetcars,
taxis,
> airplanes, and all other modes of transportation offered for public use.
> (Sect. 6-1702, Sect. 6-2241) Housing includes all accommodations offered
for
> rent, lease or compensation within the jurisdiction of the district.
(Sect.
> 6-1706, Sect. 6-2231) Violation: Any person, or agent thereof who denies
or
> interferes with the above legally established rights is punishable with
> imprisonment up to 90 days, or a fine not to exceed $300, or both. (Sect.
> 6-1707)
>
>
>
> http://ohr.dc.gov/ohr/cwp/view,a,3,q,491858,ohrNav,%7C30953%7C.asp
>
>
>
> 4. In New York, the company violated the New York Statutes, Civil Rights
> Law:
>
>
>
> New York Statutes: Civil Rights Law, Article 4-B, Sections 47 through 47c,
> 1986; Transportation Law, Section 147 New York law guarantees a blind
person
> the legal right to be accompanied by a dog guide in all public
> accommodations, in employment, and on public transportation. No extra
charge
> can be levied because of the dog guide's presence, but the dog must be in
> harness and the dog guide user can be asked to produce an identification
> card. A blind person who possesses a dog guide is entitled to equal
housing
> accommodations and cannot be charged a fee because of the dog guide.
Public
> accommodations include resorts, theaters, restaurants, stores, hotels,
> places of recreation, and all other places to which the public is invited.
> (Sect. 47) Public transportation includes taxis, subways, trains, buses,
> boats, airplanes, and all other modes of conveyance offered for public
use.
> (Sect. 47) Housing accommodations include public and private rental
> properties designed as sleeping quarters or residences. (Sect. 47)
> Employment includes state service or that of its political subdivisions
and
> all other employment activity. Equal employment opportunity includes
> prohibition against discrimination based on blindness. (Sect. 47a)
> Violation: Any owner, manager, or employee who interferes with the above
> enumerated rights is subject to prosecution under several New York State
> statutes. (Sect. 47c)
>
>
>
> http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/libdev/excerpts/cvr40.htm
>
>
>
>     Refusal to allow me to board the bus with my Seeing Eye dog is illegal
> but has at least been documented in prior cases where plaintiffs have
> successfully won claims against offending companies.  Making me sit at the
> back of a bus for being disabled is shocking and almost unforgivable given
> the slew of cases and statutes upholding protection against such behavior.
> At present I am very much interested in pursuing legal action for no other
> reason that such behavior must be stopped.  I have experienced similar
> circumstances with foreign cab drivers and restaurant owners who turned me
> away because they were not aware of the governing laws.  One mistake on
the
> company's behalf is at least pardonable.  A mistake repeated twice in the
> span of two consecutive days is something that must be addressed
> immediately.
>
>
>
> Mr. Ming Yu
>
> Today's Bus
>
> Web Site:
>
> www.todaysbus.com
>
> Phone: 718-386-5500
>
> Fax: 718-386-5559
>
>
>
> I appreciate your assistance in coming to a reasonable conclusion in this
> matter,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jahinnslerth (Joe) Orozco
>
>
>
> Cell: 512-787-8616
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw