These comments are addressed to the US Commission on Civil rights regarding special wage certificates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
See The DD News Blog for more information on the issues involved and how to submit comments. Comments are due by DECEMBER 15, 2019.
*****************************
Dear Commissioners:
Our daughter Sarah lives at Misericordia in Chicago, IL. Misericordia is a non-profit entity serving over 600 children and adults with intellectual disabilities who require around-the-clock care. Sarah is 37 years old, has cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair, and is intellectually about three to four years old. She needs assistance to perform all activities of daily living, including dressing, bathing, toileting, eating, and medicating.
We strongly support the special wages permitted by Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is essential that 14(c) remain available to those served by Misericordia.
Misericordia operates a number of work programs on its campus. The purpose of these programs is to provide job training to the men and women Misericordia serves and to provide them with a life of dignity. All of these programs operate at a loss. These programs are operated solely to give Misericordia residents the pride and self-esteem that come from holding a job. Without Section 14(c), the cost of these work programs would triple. Misericordia would be forced to employ fewer of its residents and employ them for fewer hours. The loss of job opportunities for our loved ones would not be replaced by off-campus jobs. Many Misericordia residents, including our Sarah, cannot obtain or maintain an off-campus job at the minimum wage. Sarah's intellectual and behavioral challenges preclude community employment. Her only opportunity at employment is an on-campus job where she can receive the constant care and support she requires.
We hope that through Misericordia's excellent training programs one-day Sarah can hold a job in Misericordia's laundry or recycling program. But, if Section 14(c) is eliminated, that will become impossible. The end of 14(c) would mean the end of our dream that Sarah will one day have a job on Misericordia's campus. The special wages permitted by Section 14(c) do not violate Sarah’s civil rights. In fact, Section 14(c) protects Sarah’s right to choose the work environment that best meets her needs. Depriving Sarah of that choice and relegating her to spend her days in non-work activities would violate her civil rights.
Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.
Liz and Scott Mendel
Scott Mendel is the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Together For Choice
We strongly support the special wages permitted by Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. It is essential that 14(c) remain available to those served by Misericordia.
Misericordia operates a number of work programs on its campus. The purpose of these programs is to provide job training to the men and women Misericordia serves and to provide them with a life of dignity. All of these programs operate at a loss. These programs are operated solely to give Misericordia residents the pride and self-esteem that come from holding a job. Without Section 14(c), the cost of these work programs would triple. Misericordia would be forced to employ fewer of its residents and employ them for fewer hours. The loss of job opportunities for our loved ones would not be replaced by off-campus jobs. Many Misericordia residents, including our Sarah, cannot obtain or maintain an off-campus job at the minimum wage. Sarah's intellectual and behavioral challenges preclude community employment. Her only opportunity at employment is an on-campus job where she can receive the constant care and support she requires.
We hope that through Misericordia's excellent training programs one-day Sarah can hold a job in Misericordia's laundry or recycling program. But, if Section 14(c) is eliminated, that will become impossible. The end of 14(c) would mean the end of our dream that Sarah will one day have a job on Misericordia's campus. The special wages permitted by Section 14(c) do not violate Sarah’s civil rights. In fact, Section 14(c) protects Sarah’s right to choose the work environment that best meets her needs. Depriving Sarah of that choice and relegating her to spend her days in non-work activities would violate her civil rights.
Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.
Liz and Scott Mendel
Scott Mendel is the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Together For Choice
3 comments:
Our letter to each of the Commissioners
December 6, 2019
Rosa Miriam Palmer Spellman
By Thomas Spellman and Dona Palmer parents and now guardians
210 N 2nd Street
Delavan, WI 53115
Catherine Lhamon
Legal Affairs Secretary
Dear Commissioner Lhamon
The reason for the letter to you is to advocate for our adult daughter Rosa. She will be destroyed the day that she cannot work at VIP Services. She is able to work at VIP Services, because Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Act of 1938 as amended in 1986, grants her the right to work for less than the Federal minimum wage. She in fact receives, as allowed by law, a “special minimum wage”.
We have learned all of this starting at age 70, 6 years ago and we are not part of the THEY. (The THEY are those groups and individuals who for the past 25 plus years have and continue to advocate for the elimination of Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Act of 1938 as amended in 1986).
Relative to the issue before you we believe this best describes the challenge before you.
“The commission studies alleged discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin.”
A majority of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission (USCRC) was convinced by the THEY that a hearing was necessary to explore
“Subminimum Wages: Impacts on the Civil Rights of People with Disabilities”.
Now on its face this almost seem to be a no brainer ie “subminimum wages” paid to those who are disabled! How could any rational person be supportive of such a horrendous injustice, to pay anyone much less a Disabled Individual a “subminimum wage”, and so the story begins.
First which Civil Right(s) is/are impacted by Section 14 (c)? Since Section 14 (c) is permissive in nature and not regulatory. In fact, Section 14 (c) grants Rosa, a disabled individual, and 150,000 to 170,000 other disabled individuals the right to work for less than the minimum wage. This is the right that the THEY should be protecting and the USCRC must protect.
Granting the right to work for the special minimum wage was and is the genius of Section 14 (c) and it is as valid today as it was 81 years ago when it was signed into law. It allowed, and allows today, individuals who are disabled the ability to legally work for pay.
Second the THEY claim that Rosa and the others are paid a “subminimum wage” when in fact she and the others are paid a “special minimum wage” for the work they do.
Third no one is forced to work for the special minimum wage and no one is discriminated against by the existence of Section 14 (c). The THEY in fact have turned a benefit, the right to work for a special minimum wage, into a basis for claiming that Rosa and the others are discriminated against. It is not clear who is doing the discriminating. It is not clear which Civil Right is being violated.
Sorry Part 2
Fourth. While Section 14 (c) establishes a place where disabled individuals can work for less than the minimum wage it does not segregate individuals, in this case, by disability. There are no Federal Laws that establish conditions for adults (those older than 18) who of their own free will, associate with any other adults, abled or disabled. For instance, a black student, of any age, eligible for a Pell grant can use that grant at any University that they wish to attend including Howard University. The THEY have claimed and claim, in their testimony to you, that Rosa, a disabled individual, who freely as an adult chooses to work at VIP Services, is segregated because a majority of the other workers are disabled as well. There are no Federal Laws that establish that adults who freely associate can be segregated. Rosa and the others are free to associate with whoever they choose to associate with abled or disabled.
The ultimate question before the USCRC is will the Commissioners vote to recommend to the U.S. Congress the elimination of Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Act of 1938 as amended in 1986?
While the THEY are expecting you, the commissioners, to vote in their favor, Rosa and we are sure many of the others who are able to work because of Section 14 (c) ask you to see through the lies and see what Congress saw 81 years ago, the wisdom of allowing those who could not work for the minimum wage because they were disabled the opportunity to work for a special minimum wage. Please allow Rosa and the others to work for a prorated wage commensurate with their productivity which will not penalize the employer for including them in the payroll.
Thank you for your consideration
Rosa Miriam Palmer Spellman
By Thomas Spellman Guardian Dona Palmer Guardians
Regarding whether there is any law that allows a "segregated" employment setting:
The 1971 amendments known as the Javits-Wagner-O'Dau Act provides specifically for "extended employment" for people with severe disabilities: Extended employment is defined as "work in a non-integrated or sheltered setting for a public or private non profit agency that provides compensation in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act, and any needed support services to an individual with a disability to enable the individual to continue to train or otherwise prepare for competitive employment, unless the individual through informed choice chooses to remain in extended employment".
Also, the US Supreme Court 1999 Olmstead decision does not ban segregated (or specialized for people with disabilities) settings. The Americans with Disabilities states that “A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” Whether a setting is appropriate must be determined on an individual basis. Residents of institutions are protected from being moved out of that level of care if the person does not agree to the move.
Post a Comment