VOR Comments on proposed rules on Discrimination in Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act of 1973

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a proposed rule "Discrimination on the Basis of Disability in Health and Human Service Programs or Activities", intended to update, clarify, and strengthen the implementing regulation for Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 

VOR contends that the policies of HHS, notably the actions taken over the years by the Administration for Community Living and several of the organizations they subsidize (including State P&As [a.k.a. Disability Rights] and DD Councils, University Centers for Excellence, and the National Disability Rights Network) have regularly committed acts of discrimination against those with the most severe and profound intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.

Below is the text of the letter to HHS:

To: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights

Proposed new implementing regulations on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Non-discrimination on the basis of disability in Health and Human Services programs or activities.

VOR – A Voice of Reason advocates for a full continuum of care and a full array of residential services and employment opportunities for all people with intellectual and developmental disabilities and/or autism. We would like to remind HHS of the broad diversity that characterizes the individuals who make up this population, from those who need some assistance to function in society to those who cannot survive without 24 hour around-the-clock assistance.

For the past 25 years, HHS has pursued “inclusion for all” policies that VOR believes have left behind the most disadvantaged members of this community. Before you take another step to dismantle more of these programs, we would urge you to review the purposes of the ADA, the Olmstead decision and the real-world effects on the most vulnerable population that we believe has been demonstrably hurt and even died as a result of these policies. [Some disability organizations call for sweeping changes to close all residential programs and services that provide care in congregate settings serving more that 3 or 4 people with disabilities.] We urge you not to just count the number of large facilities closed and people moved into the community, but to assess whether their needs are being met, whether there are sufficient well-trained staff and the overall the quality of their lives, including the frequency of abuse and neglect and the mortality rates relative to their former homes.

The ADA recognized the harm that our society had done by institutionalizing people who were “different” and called for giving them opportunities to participate in mainstream activities. Olmstead properly implemented that policy by permitting two individuals who wished to leave an institution and move into a less restrictive environment to do so, recognizing that institutional care was, by definition, segregated care. At the same time, Justice Ginsburg recognized that the I/DD population varied widely and that, for some people, an institution was the least restrictive environment.

Since enactment of the ADA, government policy has helped thousands of people who were capable of living and prospering in the broader community to leave institutions and lead a more productive and filling life. The DD System overseen by HHS has played a major role s in helping people who seek care in less restrictive environments to transition into Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS) settings or receive more at-home or own-home supplemental services. We applaud the success of these programs. At the same time, we have been concerned that this movement has ignored the reality that Justice Ginsburg recognized that some people can benefit most from institutional care and that ideological blinders have eroded another key component of the DD System – intermediate care facilities for people with intellectual disabilities (ICF or ICF/IID).

Part of the premise for pursuing the closure of ICFs has been the usually unspoken view that parents who choose ICF care for their loved ones are not acting in their best interest. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Being the parent or sibling of a child with severe or profound intellectual disability or autism presents a lifetime of tremendous challenges. Aside from the daily challenges posed by the child her/himself, one of the most difficult challenges is navigating the DD System. Parents and guardians try to make informed choices from a limited set of imperfect options. Most families’ first choice is to have their child live at home. As the child ages and new challenges emerge, the parents have to re-assess those options, often choosing a small privately operated group home. If and when the group home system fails to meet their child’s needs, they usually seek a higher level of care in a larger congregate setting. Unfortunately, our system usually makes this difficult decision even more difficult to realize. Federal and state policies favoring HCBS care over the years have reduced the number of available beds in ICFs and created a two-tiered system, favoring HCBS funding and decreasing funding for the ICF system. While many proponents of HCBS’ inclusionary policies see this as progress, the families that rely on ICF services feel they have been victims of discrimination by their own community and by the very systems that have been put in place to serve them.

ICFs are not for everyone. Most people do benefit from some form of HCBS service. But not everyone. Larger congregate care facilities offer an economy of scale, allowing them to have 24/7 nursing, doctors on campus Monday – Friday and on call nights and weekends, dental clinics, psychiatric services and behavioral specialists, physical therapy, music therapy, swimming, and other services and amenities, most of which cannot be offered in a small group home. ICFs are more highly regulated by CMS and certification is far tougher than it is for HCBS services. Also, ICFs are required to offer active treatment, which may or may not be offered in group homes, but is not required. For people whose existential needs exceed their desire for acceptance by the non-disabled community, ICFs are essential.

Section 504 prohibits discriminatory acts in health care and human services, including denying qualified individuals the opportunity to participate in or benefit from federally funded programs and services. ICFs are federally approved, federally funded residential facilities. Many states have closed admission to these facilities, or ceased to create new opportunities to receive care in these facilities in favor of moving individuals to HCBS services. We contend that Section 504 must protect the right to care in ICF settings as well as in HCBS settings.

This discrimination has become accepted by all but those who need this level of care. The governors of several states have closed ICFs based on the biases of those who portray the ID/A population as a monolithic group that always benefits from community living. Presidential administrations have endorsed this ideology. The Department of Justice, too, has brought lawsuits, closing facilities for not meeting these arbitrary standards.

The bias in favor of HCBS care was memorialized on April 18, 2012, when the Administration on Developmental Disabilities and other agencies were combined into the Administration for Community Living (ACL). Over the past decade, ACL has pursued an ideology of “everyone does better in the community” that ignores the fact that many of those with severe and profound I/DD and autism cannot. As a result of this directive, ACL has funneled millions of dollars into state DD Councils and state Protection and Advocacy agencies (P&A). These agencies have targeted ICFs, launching far more on-site investigations in these facilities than in group home environments, and using federal funds to initiate class action suits aimed at closing ICFs (Illinois, Ligas v. Maram, and Ohio, Ball v. Kasich to name just two. In both of these cases, the court found for the families defending ICF care, but at a huge personal cost to the families involved).

In addition to funding the National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD) and the National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), the ACL provides funding for the Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD). The AUCD conducts studies on matters affecting people with I/DD and autism, but usually limits the topics of their studies to those which will point to successful outcomes of programs initiated by the ACL. They have not conducted studies on mortality rates of people who have been forced out of their ICF homes of thirty or forty years when state governors have acted, either independently or at the direction of the state P&A or DOJ lawsuits, to close these facilities. They have not attempted to document the outcomes of people who have been forced out of sheltered workshops and 14(c) employment opportunities and wind up in day programs with no work, no pay, and no options, and forced into an even more segregated community with a cohort of more severely disabled individuals.

Discrimination against the neediest people with ID/A also applies to employment opportunities. Employment facilities licensed under provisions of Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, aka sheltered workshops, have been under attack by many of the same groups that advocate for the closure of ICFs. Without these programs, most of those who participate in them would be left without daytime activities as the reality is that they cannot perform to a level that warrants paying them the minimum wage. Ideological dogma cannot change reality. Despite the fact that these are voluntary programs, and the fact that they are enthusiastically approved by a vast majority of those who participate in them (97%), non-participants with high acuity, non-intellectual disabilities, federal and state agencies, and federal and state legislators have been calling for these programs to be phased out and eliminated. Furthermore, we would contend that the states that have ended their 14(c) programs have already committed discriminatory acts against people with intellectual disabilities and autism, by denying qualified individuals the opportunity to participate in or benefit from federally funded programs, services, or other benefits. If we are indeed to rectify this discrimination, should we not insist that those states re-open access to 14(c) programs?

The normalization of these discriminatory policies by HHS also gives license to the Congress to enact legislation that further discriminates against the neediest component of the ID/A population. The continuing enactment of legislation that either increases funding for HCBS services only or establishes a favorable funding formula for those services instead of ICF services is yet another way that HHS is complicit in undermining services for those who need them the most. Advocating and supporting these discriminatory policies gut a federal program that remains on the books and provides valuable and often essential service. At the same time, it has not met its practical goals – to provide more money and better services for people who reside in HCBS facilities. It is past time for HHS to return to the basics of the ADA and Olmstead – to insure that individuals with ID can choose where they wish to live and to advocate for what is best for the individuals, as determined by them and their families and guardians, not by lawyers and professional advocates.

The Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead is often cited as a mandate for inclusion by self-advocates, well-endowed advocacy organizations, and government agencies. As indicated above, that is not what the decision says. Olmstead protects choice in its three-prong test and specifically acknowledges the need for “institutional” care, i.e. intermediate care facilities, in some circumstances. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg cited an amicus from VOR in her decision, stating, “Each disabled person is entitled to treatment in the most integrated setting possible for that person—recognizing that, on a case-by-case basis, that setting may be in an institution.” [1]
The Court was very clear that Olmstead was not to be viewed as a one-dimensional “inclusion mandate”, recognizing the need for States to maintain a range of facilities for the diverse needs of persons with developmental disabilities:

"Unjustified isolation, we hold, is properly regarded as discrimination based on disability. But we recognize, as well, the States' need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and the States' obligation to administer services with an even hand." [2]

“We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from community settings. . . Nor is there any federal requirement that community - based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it." [3]

"[U]nder Title II of the ADA, States are required to provide community-based treatment for persons with mental disabilities [1] when the State's treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate, [2] the affected persons do not oppose such treatment, and [3] the placement can be reasonably accommodated , taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities." [4]

"As already observed [by the majority], the ADA is not reasonably read to impel States to phase out institutions, placing patients in need of close care at risk. . . Some individuals . . . may need institutional care from time to time 'to stabilize acute psychiatric symptoms’. . . For other individuals, no placement outside the institution may ever be appropriate...for these persons, institutional settings are needed and must remain available." [5]

To be clear, we understand that we are asking the very agencies that created these policies and discriminated against those with the most severe and profound levels of I/DD and autism to cease these discriminatory practices. But, before you move further down this path, we ask you to look at our families and our loved ones through our eyes for a few moments:

Having a child with a severe or profound intellectual disability or autism involves a lifetime of extremely difficult choices. Our families ask for your help and support in making the best choices, from a full range of high-quality options, not from a rigid ideology that does not comport with reality. We ask for this support from those in government who oversee the DD system and provide those services, and from the community of people with I/DD and autism and their families, who should be the first to empathize with our challenges and provide emotional support. It’s time we end the discrimination against those with the most severe intellectual and developmental disabilities and autism. These ideals should be at the heart of any re-assessment of Section 504.

---------------------------------
[1] Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, at 605
[2] ibid, at 597
[3] ibid, at 601-602
[4] ibid, at 607
[5] ibid, at 604-605

A Coffee Shop staffed with people with intellectual disabilities draws harsh criticism from federally-funded disability rights advocates

Bitty and Beau's Coffee, Ann Arbor

An Article in Disability Scoop, “Coffee Shop Hires Workers With Disabilities. Why Do Some Say That’s Bad News?” by Morgan Hughes, from 10/10/23 caught my eye for several reasons. One is that there has been a campaign for years by disability rights advocates to oppose and eliminate congregate settings for people with I/DD that provide services or residential programs in groups of more than 3 or 4 individuals. That includes opposition to congregate work programs, group homes, day programs, specialized school programs, larger residential settings such as Intermediate Care Facilities for individuals with intellectual disabilities, family-initiated residential communities, and anything else that advocates may construe as "too institutional”.

Many of the objections by disability rights advocates have been related to the use of federal or state funds paying for such programs. In the case of Bitty and Beau’s Coffee in Columbia, South Carolina, however, advocates have targeted a private business that receives no government funds and pays at least minimum wage to its employees. (It does not participate in the federal 14(c) waiver program.)

Bitty and Beau’s is a chain of 19 coffee shops in 11 states. The company employs more than 400 people, most of whom have disabilities.This includes a coffee business on South Main Street in Ann Arbor, Michigan, where it is part of a bustling business district in a university town. I have not visited the Ann Arbor shop, but by all accounts, the employees, their families, and the community at large enthusiastically support the presence of this unique business.

Objections to the coffee shop in South Carolina, come primarily from Able South Carolina, (AbleSC),  an organization “… established under the Rehabilitation Act to be run and operated by people with disabilities as a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services designated Center for Independent Living.” The organization received over 3.5 million dollars in government grants in 2021.

According to the article in Disability Scoop, local disability rights advocates say Bitty and Beau’s creates an environment where inspiration is the goal.

Kimberly Tissot, the CEO of AbleSC, “‘worried that employees with disabilities would be used like props, meant to offer customers smiles and hugs but not to be taken seriously as people…’ Businesses that employ only people with disabilities have also been known to pay below minimum wage because of a federal waiver that allows it, other disability rights advocates said.”...

“But critics say even if employees are earning a fair income, the store sends the wrong message to people without disabilities.

“‘It kind of plays off the heartstrings to get people to open their wallets,’ said Crush Rush, a local disability rights advocate and AbleSC board member." He calIs it crudely, "inspiration porn."

…“Despite the data, Tissot sees the business and those like it as counterproductive because she said the business segregates people with disabilities. She said that segregation can lead typically-developing people to think people with disabilities can only succeed in those environments. Tissot has a physical disability and a 13-year-old son with an intellectual disability.”

Integrated employment for thee, but not for me? 

The law (Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act establishing CILs) mandates that the majority of the CIL staff and individuals in decision making positions, including the governing board, must be individuals with disabilities. 

In other words, one could say that workers at AbleSC are employed in a congregate setting and serve primarily others with disabilities.

I see nothing inherently nefarious nor improper about Centers for Independent Living, but a little bit of self-reflection by the CIL disabled employees might temper the criticism coming from these organizations. Is it only when they are talking about people with intellectual disabilities that such congregate work arrangements are considered abhorrent? The hypocrisy is clear when one disability group attacks another on the basis of principles that they themselves do not follow.

“Nothing About Us, Without Us” except when “Us” doesn’t include you

Nothing in the Disability Scoop article indicates that representatives of AbleSC asked the employees of Bitty and Beau’s in Columbia, South Carolina, how they felt about their jobs and their place in the community. I think most of the workers in these businesses are able to communicate and if they are not, then why not ask their families how they respond to the work and whether they find satisfaction in what they do? 

I agree with Amy Wright, one of the owners of the company, who says “I really wish those same disability advocates would take that frustration they are feeling and direct it toward other businesses in Columbia that don’t hire anyone with a disability.” 

And for those who say they will boycott the business, that’s fine. That will make everyone’s life easier. 

************************

More information on CILs from the Administration on Community Living... 

Bitty and Beau's Coffee

U.S. Department of Labor holds stakeholder listening sessions on special wage certificates that support employment for many with I/DD

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is conducting stakeholder engagement sessions as it reviews the use of 14(c) compensatory wage certificates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD). These are used by employers to make possible work programs that employ people who are unable to participate in regular competitive, integrated employment for reasons related to their disabilities. 

Section 14(c) of the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) authorizes employers, after receiving a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division, to pay subminimum wages - wages less than the Federal minimum wage - to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed.

According to a Department of Labor website, Michigan businesses employ about 800 people under this federal program.

****************************

From the VOR Weekly News Update for October 27, 2023:

The first session was held on Thursday, October 26, 2023.

DOL - Additional Section 14(c) Stakeholder Engagement Sessions Announced

In addition to last night's session [10/26/23], DOL is offering two more opportunities for families to speak on the importance of providing more options for people with I/DD and autism, rather than reducing the number and variety of services available.

NEW:

Stakeholder Engagement Session #2: 
November 01, 2023, from 2:00 to 3:30 PM ET.
Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance of the meeting by October 30 [Sorry! Registration is closed for this session]

Stakeholder Engagement Session #3: 
November 15, 2023, from 5:30 to 7:00 PM ET.
Members of the public wishing to participate must register in advance of the meeting by November 1. Click here to register

For more information about these sessions, please click here

****************************

Last Night's [10/26/23] Session

Last night's session ran nearly two hours. Participants were given 2 minutes to speak about their experience and their views on 14(c) programs.

The first to speak was a representative from Microsoft, who announced that they oppose 14(c) programs, because they believe everyone with I/DD or autism can work for minimum wage or better. They announced that they had opened up over 500 jobs in competitive integrated employment.

Microsoft's statement was allowed to run nearly 5 minutes, The two minute time limit was imposed after their representative delivered their prepared statement. This was, once again, a grim reminder that powerful organizations hold much larger influence over policy than do individuals or families of people with IDD and autism.

Our friend Kit Brewer, a provider of 14(c) services and VP of the Coalition for the Preservation of Employment Choice, later spoke, thanking Microsoft for opening up 500 competitive jobs, but countered that providers in the State of Missouri have provided employment to over 5,000 people who prefer to work in sheltered workshops under 14(c).

VOR's Dawn Kovakovich spoke of her daughter's growth over her adult life that is a direct result of her engagement in sheltered workshop. She also told the attendees that the best explanation for the need of 14(c) programs can be found in Chapter 4 of Amy Lutz; book, "Chasing the Intact Mind".

Several self-advocates spoke of their feelings that people with I/DD or autism working for less than minimum wage was hurtful or degrading to them personally (that is, to the self-advocate, not the person who is working in the environment of their choosing). A representative from Diability Rights Kansas also spoke against sheltered workshops.

Hugo Dwyer of VOR spoke of the difficult choices that families are forced to make throughout their lives to ensure what is best for their loved ones with I/DD and autism. These choices vary, depending on the individual in question and the options available, and how members of the disability community should work together and support each other's choices, even if those are not the choices they have made. We should support each other, empathize with each other's challenges, and respect the choices that each of us make.

It is vitally important that VOR members sign up to speak at these meetings. Every voice in favor of 14(c) programs is needed, to help preserve these opportunities for those families who benefit from them.

Michigan businesses and organizations that hold special subminimum wage certificates for people with disabilities

Section 14(c) of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act allows the issuance of special wage certificates to employers of disabled workers who are unable to work successfully in competitive work settings for competitive wages. The special subminimum wage certificates have been used especially for vocational centers that serve people with severe disabilities who would otherwise not be employed. Vocational work centers often offer additional social services and specialized care for people with severe medical or behavioral problems. 

There are other resources available through state vocational rehabilitation departments to assist with opportunities for competitive employment. No one can legally be forced to work in a vocational work center. 

14(c) Certificate Holders in Michigan

From the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division

“The following employers hold or have applied for certificates issued under section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The certificates authorize employers to pay subminimum wages to workers with disabilities that impair their productivity for the work they perform. This list is current as of April 1, 2021.

“The list contains the following information: certificate type, employer name, employer address, whether the application for the certificate was an initial or renewal application, whether the employer indicated it held government contracts covered by either the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (PCA) or the McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) at the time of application, and the number of workers with disabilities who were paid subminimum wages by the certificate holder during their most recently completed fiscal quarter. This data is based solely on information provided on the employer's certificate application. The list also includes the status of the certificate and certificate starting and ending dates.

“For certificates in 'pending' status, some columns are blank. All data is displayed for issued certificates.”

To find Michigan holders of 14(c) wage certificates, go to the spread sheet on the website that lists employers. Click on the column for "state". This will show states listed in alphabetical order with detailed information about employers using the special wage certificates.

There are 1,704 subminimum wage certificates in Michigan issued by the US Department of Labor. 13 businesses have wage certificates “pending”. If Congress eliminates these subminimum wage certificates, many these employees will either lose employment opportunies currently offered or they will be shifted to other programs, such as day programs, if they are unable to unwilling to participate in competitive employment. In the "Raise the Wage Act of 2021" there are no requirements for states to track what happens to these workers or to examine the fate of many workers who have been moved out of work center programs. There is an assumption in the proposed legislation that competitive employment works for everyone and when it doesn't, the federal government is not interested in hearing about it.

Myths and Facts about Vocational Work Centers

The Raise the Wage Act of 2021 would increase the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, a move supported by a majority of Americans. However, the bill would also lead to the elimination of work opportunities for thousands of severely disabled workers. By eliminating the use of sub-minimum wage certificates authorized by section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, businesses that operate work centers that make special accommodations for severely disabled workers would very likely be unable to continue operating. 

Here are the Myths and Facts about work centers from VOR (a Voice Of Reason), a national nonprofit organization advocating for a full range of employment, service, and residential options to meet the needs of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD).

****************

MYTHS AND FACTS ABOUT VOCATIONAL WORK CENTERS

MYTH: People with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and their families are dissatisfied with vocational work centers.
FACT: Vocational work centers (also known as sheltered workshops) are valued for the services they provide to people with I/DD who are unable to adapt to competitive employment. When these centers are threatened with closure, employees with I/DD and their families are the most fervent advocates for keeping them open.

MYTH: Vocational work centers are isolating environments.
FACT: These work centers are part of the greater community. Those who choose jobs at work centers develop a sense of accomplishment and self-worth because of work completed. Far from being isolating, they offer people a sense of camaraderie and a chance to interact with their peers.

MYTH: Vocational work centers are the only choice for work for people with intellectual disabilities.
FACT: There are many resources available through state vocational rehabilitation departments to assist with opportunities for competitive employment. No one can legally be forced to work in a vocational work center. 

MYTH: Work centers do not provide opportunities to transition to competitive employment in the community.
FACT: For those who can develop skills to work in competitive employment, work centers provide opportunities to learn skills necessary to be successful such as being on time, working with others, and completing assigned tasks.

MYTH: All people, no matter the nature of their disability, can find competitive employment.
FACT: Some individuals have more difficulty adapting to competitive employment. Vocational centers provide opportunities for work while providing more specialized supports such as personal hygiene care, preventing and attending to seizures, or helping with behavioral issues and developing social skills.

MYTH: Work centers do not provide for meaningful jobs.
FACT: Examples of work opportunities include: manufacturing, item assembly, recycling, packaging, repair, and machine operating. https://dese.mo.gov/special-education/sheltered-workshops/jobs-performed-sheltered-workshops   

MYTH: Oversight of vocational work centers is lax.
FACT: According to the Department of Labor: “All subminimum wages must be reviewed and adjusted, if appropriate, at periodic intervals. At a minimum, the productivity of hourly paid workers must be reevaluated every six months and a new prevailing wage survey must be conducted at least every twelve months.”
https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs39.pdf

MYTH: Vocational work centers violate the 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision.
FACT: The 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision supports CHOICE. Closing these centers contradicts the opinion expressed by the majority of Justices in Olmstead by eliminating a desired, chosen and helpful employment option. 

MYTH: Eliminating 14(c) certificates of the Fair Labor Standards Act will increase employment rates of all individuals with disabilities.
FACT: 14(c) wage certificates of the Fair Labor and Standards Act allow employers to afford to provide the specialized services needed by people with I/DD who are not able to adapt to competitive employment. Eliminating these wage certificates will force the closure of vocational work centers, eliminating jobs with no replacement in
competitive employment.

**************************

See also:

VOR opposes part of the Raise the Wage Act 

Biden's Opening Disability Gambit would eliminate crucial programs for the severely disabled from the National Council on Severe Autism

VOR opposes part of the Raise the Wage Act that would eliminate work opportunities for the most severely disabled

Legislation to raise the federal minimum wage to $15/hour was initially part of The American Rescue Plan, a huge piece of legislation that was passed by Congress and signed by President Biden on March 11, 2021. It was removed before the bill was voted on, but proposals to raise the federal minimum wage continue as stand-alone bills in Congress. The Raise the Wage Act of 2021 has the most support at the moment, and will likely come up for consideration in the future.

Although raising the federal minimum wage is supported by a majority of Americans, the Raise the Wage Act includes a proposal that would adversely affect thousands of  people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD), especially those who are unable to work in integrated work settings for competitive wages. Part of the proposed legislation would phase out and then eliminate work programs that make accommodations for people with the most severe behavioral and intellectual disabilities. 

One of those accommodations is the use of special wage certificates that allow employers to pay less than minimum wage to people unable to successfully compete with other workers in competitive work settings. These work programs (formerly called sheltered workshops) are voluntary on the part of the disabled employees. They usually provide other social services along with supervised work opportunities. Many of the participants receive support from other government programs and do not rely solely on their employment for basic living expenses. Programs that help disabled employees include SSI (Supplemental Security Income), Medicaid health insurance, and home and community based services to meet the extensive needs of this population. Other employees live in federally regulated Medicaid-funded Intermediate Care Facilities for people with intellectual disabilities. The proposed legislation will result in fewer employment opportunities for these workers, not more. Most will lose programs in settings appropriate to their needs.

The following is a message to Congress from VOR (a Voice Of Reason) warning of the consequences of eliminating special wage certificates and reducing opportunities for work by people with I/DD.

***************

Please Oppose Elimination of the Section 14(c) Subminimum Wage Certificate Program that Provides for Vocational Work Centers for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

VOR is a grassroots advocacy organization comprising mostly families of individuals with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), often complicated by significant medical, psychological, and/or behavioral conditions. Just as your neighbors and friends vary in ability, so do people in the disability community. The only difference is that the variance is far greater, with some older individuals with I/DD functioning at the level of young children. VOR has advocated for nearly 40 years for Congress and the public to recognize these differences and make sure these individual needs are not ignored in the push by other advocacy groups for everyone with I/DD “to live a life like yours in the community.” Our approach has been to advocate for a full range of residential options to meet the needs of individuals instead of the one-size-fits all approach. Consistent with this view, we support maintaining a full range of employment options for the I/DD community, making sure these opportunities provide for those who can succeed in competitive integrated employment as well those who cannot.

The American Rescue Plan, H.R. 603 and S. 53, include provisions to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour for all workers, including all individuals with I/DD. This legislation would phase out the section14(c) program authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The unintended consequence of such a broad provision would be to completely eliminate employment opportunities for thousands of the nation’s most disabled individuals.

What are specialized wage certificates and why is it important to retain them? Section 14(c) [of the Fair Labor Standards Act] authorizes the issuance of these certificates that permit employers to pay individuals with I/DD lower than the federal minimum wage when their level of productivity is so low as to make them noncompetitive in the general workforce. It requires employers to make special accommodations for their intellectual, physical, behavioral, and mental illness challenges, giving thousands of individuals with I/DD the opportunity to work in a specialized environment that nurtures them and fits their abilities.

They earn wages that are appropriate to their level of productivity and their capacity to work. Without 14(c) certificates, they would lose any opportunity to work. 

What is the argument for eliminating the program? Support for eliminating this program rests on the false premise that this is a civil rights issue, i.e., that all individuals, including those with I/DD, can perform work tasks at a level that warrants the minimum wage, and so should be paid accordingly. This is simply not true, and were this notion to be incorporated into legislation, it would result in many individuals with severe I/DD disabilities losing, not gaining, work opportunities. Surely, that is not the goal of this provision.

Who are the individuals who benefit from the 14(c) program, what do they do, and how does it enrich their lives? Employment usually takes place at facility-based work centers, formerly called “sheltered workshops”. These vocational centers provide a specialized environment adapted to individuals with I/DD who desire to work, but may have frequent seizures, act out physically, even violently, when stressed, or need help toileting or having their adult diapers changed.

At the centers, workers crush cans, fold letters for mailing, stuff envelopes, fill soda bottles and cough drop boxes, pack and label items, and perform many small-piece assembly tasks. Each of these employees has a job coach (direct support professional). Sometimes they work alone and sometimes they perform these tasks with assistance. If the work centers had to pay them minimum wage, they would have to close, leaving the workers unemployed.

These centers provide more than employment. They also afford workers opportunities to build self-esteem, develop friendships, and engage in their communities. People who work at these centers do so without fear of being fired, or of having to live up to competitive standards of productivity in order to show their worth. Earned wages, though appreciated, are not the substantive reward for these individuals. 

Congress should expand, not decrease, employment opportunities for all people with I/DD. This is not a binary, either/or, situation. Congress can help those who can perform in a competitive environment without depriving those who are less able from the opportunity to work. VOR supports paying minimum wage to people with I/DD who are able to work in the competitive workplace.

However, ignoring the reality of different degrees of disability would result in thousands losing their jobs. This must not be the outcome. The answer is simple – pay minimum wage to people with I/DD who can, with reasonable accommodations, perform at a competitive productivity level and continue the
section 14(c) program for those who cannot.

Retaining specialized wage certificates under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and supporting work centers will help persons with severe intellectual, behavioral, and medical challenges continue to find success in productive work, earn a wage, build self-confidence, make friends, and participate in their communities.

******************
Read more: 

"An Existential Threat against the Significantly Disabled:
Phase-Out of Vocational Centers (Sheltered Workshops)", by Harris Capps, November 2019

"Subminimum Wage: Exploitation or Lifesaving?"

Proposals to raise the minimum wage for all workers may leave some workers with disabilities struggling with unintended consequences

The federal Raise the Wage Act was introduced in the last Congress in an effort to eventually raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour for all workers, including those with even the most severe disabilities. This has apparently been reintroduced as H.R. 603 and S. 53 and included in The American Rescue Plan. Besides raising the minimum wage for all workers, It would eliminate special wage certificates for people with severe disabilities. These 14(c) special wage certificates are authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act and allow work centers (formerly called “sheltered workshops”) to pay workers less than minimum wage when their level of productivity prevents them from being competitive in the general workforce. These specialized work centers provide opportunities and special accommodations for people who would otherwise be unable to compete for jobs.

Elimination of the 14(c) wage certificates would ultimately lead to the closure of work centers that thousands of workers with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and their families rely on for meaningful employment and other benefits of a specialized work environment that accommodates the needs of people with the most severe disabilities. Although this has often been framed as a civil rights issue, no one is compelled to accept employment at a work center and the law provides protections for workers and requirements for employees designed to prevent exploitation. [See Fact Sheet on The Employment of Workers with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages]

In a recent news update, ACCSES, an organization representing providers of disability services, provides details of the Raise the Wage Act  and follows these with comments on the parts of the legislation affecting workers with disabilities:

“Before moving on to other news, we want to pause for a moment and talk about 14(c). At ACCSES, we see 14(c) as part of a continuum of paid work opportunities that increase options for people with the most significant disabilities. Neither this bill, nor others introduced in the past, will lead directly to more employment for individuals working under a certificate. It is not a binary choice. Rather, for many, it will eliminate an option that is highly valued and regularly coupled with other services, including competitive employment, which often provides for only a few hours of work per week.

“A great deal of energy is devoted to trying to eliminate 14(c). Imagine if all of that collective attention were repurposed to reducing the need for 14(c) by focusing instead on closing the vast competitive employment gap for individuals with disabilities, expanding options, educating commercial and nonprofit employers generally of the tremendous workforce available to them, finding legislative solutions that encourage more employers to hire people with the most significant disabilities, increasing funding for supported employment and customized employment, increasing funding for social enterprise models and apprenticeship programs, recognizing disability service providers as the foundation of the disability service system (including employment) rather than trying to exclude them or dismiss their incredible depth of knowledge and experience, and most importantly, honoring the legitimate choice of individuals to have the job they want. This could lead to more positive results than simply eliminating 14(c) and forcing people into unpaid work, day support programs (which is a perfectly fine choice for individuals and already available as an option) or leaving individuals with few options at all other than being at home. This pandemic has shown many of us how difficult it is to be isolated at home away from our communities for long periods of time. Moreover, it has underscored the trauma of job loss, which should not be overlooked.

“At no time has the federal government conducted an actual study as to what has happened to individuals in states where 14(c) has been eliminated as a work payment choice. A true, unbiased study should be undertaken as a first step before any movement to eliminate 14(c) or limit its use, as it will highlight where attention for positive change should be focused. There are numerous ancillary concerns that must be taken into consideration – social security asset limits, transportation, the unemployment rate generally as well as specifically in the most rural parts of our country, the movement toward robotic solutions for businesses, jobs leaving the U.S., and the economic impact on families of eliminating an option that is providing a source of consistency and community, etc. Taking a paid work opportunity from people who take pride in their work will not by itself lead to more paid employment options or opportunities. This is a complex issue, and it will take getting everyone around the table to sit down with open minds to come up with good ideas to increase opportunities, not to just take away an option. A solution that will deny some individuals the dignity of work or that denigrates their jobs is the ultimate demoralizer. This is what keeps us up at night."

*****************

More on specialized work centers, sub minimum wages, and supported employment from The DD News Blog.

More comments on non-competitive employment for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Testimony from 18 Missouri, an organization representing 6,000 families in support of people benefitting from non-competitive employment.

See more on Youtube.

Today, 12/15/19 is the last day to submit comments to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Regarding Section14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. 14(c) allows employers to pay people with disabilities less than minimum wage based on their individual abilities and needs. Protections in the law make acceptance of non-competitive employment voluntary. Other employment opportunities are available for people with disabilities who want competitive employment for at least minimum wage through Vocational Rehabilitation agencies and supported employment services. 

Submit comments by email here, subminimumwages@usccr.gov . 

Although comments are due today, anyone can comment any time to the US Commission on Civil Rights.

The following are excerpts from a letter dated 11/14/19 from Jill Escher, President of the National Council on Severe Autism, to the US Commission on Civil rights regarding “non-competitive employment options with severe cognitive, functional and behavioral disabilities”. Read the full text of the letter here.

************************
National Council on Severe Autism
PO Box 26853
San Jose, CA 95159
info@ncsautism.org
ncsautism.org
November 14, 2019 

United States Commission on Civil Rights
Via email: subminimumwages@usccr.gov 

...We fully understand and appreciate that some individuals with disabilities have been paid less than their productivity warrants—clearly, justice requires that those individuals receive competitive wages. However, a substantial portion of the disability sector—namely, those with substantial cognitive and behavioral impairments who lack the ability to engage in work at a competitive level—require noncompetitive, highly supported options…. 

All Americans should have access to work, but elimination of 14(c) de facto excludes our severe ID population from the workforce based on the fantasy that all intellectually disabled adults could achieve competitive employment. A few more key points: 

• Given the staggering increase in the population with severe autism, we see a clear imperative to create vastly more, not fewer, options for day programming and supported forms of employment. …We need to maximize their person-centered options, including work that pays special wages based on less-than-competitive productivity.
• Subminimum wage work is but one benefit accruing to the significantly disabled clients. …A standard job supervisor is unlikely to treat seizures, change diapers, or handle getting punched or scratched, to put it mildly. The extremely valuable, though non-monetary, therapeutic dimensions should be considered before over-simplistically labeling subminimum wages as discriminatory. 
• 14(c) programs serving the significantly intellectually disabled provide a protected form of employment unavailable in the free market...the employee’s needs comes first, and profitability is not the prime endpoint. The nonprofit work is typically tailored to the particular skillset of the worker, a customization unavailable in the free labor market where individuals are expected to conform to pre-established performance standards...Disability advocates often accuse 14(c) wage programs of exploiting or abusing their disabled workers, but for severely challenged adults, the opposite is almost always true— the programs often protect clients from exploitation and abuse by offering protected employment. 
• No person with a disability is forced into 14(c) work, and wages are set carefully. … 
• Most workers with disabilities, for example physical disabilities, are already in the competitive market...As Harris Capps, the father of Matthew, who loves his job in an Ohio work center, states, "If a higher functioning individual is able to get a job providing a mandated minimum wage, surely, they already have the minimum wage law in effect to protect them." 
• When non-competitive workshops close, participants often end up idle at home, lonely and unemployed, or if they work at all, with decreased job hours and decreased total wages. Where is the data suggesting better outcomes for the severely disabled who are denied the opportunity to work? We have seen none. Slashing their jobs, leaving them to languish at home, detached from any community of peers, with no viable alternative discriminates against our most vulnerable. The ostensible “liberation” of requiring competitive employment obviously strands our most vulnerable citizens. At a minimum, 14(c) must remain intact for our subset who lack capacity for competitive employment. 

*********************

Fact Sheet on Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities

The DD News Blog testimony to the USCCR

Testimony on special wage certificates for people with disabilities

December 13, 2019

To: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
From: Jill R. Barker, Ann Arbor, Michigan 

Re: Do 14(c) wage certificates violate the civil rights of people with disabilities?

Answer: NO, not with the protections properly enforced in current law and the availability of choices to meet individual needs.

I am the parent of two adult sons with profound intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Despite the claims by many disability advocacy groups, that all people with disabilities can work in integrated, competitive work settings, my sons are not capable of work of any kind, although there are many services and protections that are afforded to them that improve and maintain the quality of their lives.

I also belong to local and national disability organizations that acknowledge a broad spectrum of ability and need and avoid proclaiming to know with absolute certainty what all people with disabilities can and can’t do. Only by empowering individual voices of people with disabilities (including legal guardians) and their families to advocate for their own needs and preferences will we ever get to a system of care and services that is in synch with the needs of this diverse population.

Special wages below minimum wage are permitted under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for people with disabilities. The claim that these are inherently discriminatory is belied by the protections in law that make acceptance of these services voluntary and a choice among alternatives for employment.

According to a Fact Sheet from the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, on “The Employment of Workers with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages”,

“The fact that a worker may have a disability is not in and of itself sufficient to warrant the payment of a subminimum wage.”

Special wage certificates allow people with more severe cognitive and other disabilities to work at their own pace in skill development centers (sheltered workshops, usually in community settings) and receive pay adjusted to their abilities and how fast they work. Special wages are below the federal minimum wage and are a way to subsidize employers who provide jobs to people who would otherwise not be able to compete for employment.

Wages must be commensurate with the individual’s abilities and productivity: “All subminimum wages must be reviewed and adjusted, if appropriate, at periodic intervals. At a minimum, the productivity of hourly paid workers must be reevaluated every six months and a new prevailing wage survey must be conducted at least every twelve months;” … “any worker with a disability paid at subminimum wages, or his/her parent or guardian, may petition the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for a review of their special wage rates by a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge.”

People with intellectual and developmental disabilities who wish to work in integrated competitive work settings for at least minimum wage should be eligible for ongoing supported employment services, usually funded by Medicaid Waivers.

With Medicaid and social security benefits and a variety of options available to people with IDD, it is hard to imagine that individuals who choose to work in non-competitive work settings are depriving themselves of their civil rights.

Depriving people with severe disabilities of an accommodation that allows them to engage in appropriate work is in itself discriminatory.

In an article from The Hill, “Eliminating subminimum wage waivers will harm hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities”, 8/10/2018, David Ordon writes,

“In 2014, 75 percent of individuals with I/DD receiving day or employment services through a state I/DD system were attending a sheltered or facility-based environment.

“This means that efforts to remove 14 (c) subminimum wage certificates are essentially targeting one group, and one group alone: people with disabilities who choose to attend sheltered workshops”.

Protecting the choices of people with severe disabilities also protects choice in general for all people with disabilities. Eliminating choices that some advocates don’t approve of may feel good to them in the moment, but using civil rights as a weapon to deprive people of needed services is unfortunately an excuse that is not lost on government agencies and legislators always looking for ways to cut costs for vulnerable populations.

Jill R. Barker
12/13/2018

Fact Sheet on Subminimum Wages for People with Disabilities

The US Department of Labor issued a Fact Sheet on “The Employment of Workers with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages” in 2008. It still applies, even as discussion of changes to the law is currently a hot topic.

Special wage certificates allow people with more severe cognitive and other disabilities to work at their own pace in skill development centers (sheltered workshops, usually in community settings) and receive pay adjusted to their abilities and how fast they work. Special wages are below the federal minimum wage and are a way to subsidize employers who provide jobs to people who would otherwise not be able to compete for employment.

The facts show, that working in a sheltered workshop or other non-competitive employment situation is not an arbitrary decision nor is it compulsory: “The fact that a worker may have a disability is not in and of itself sufficient to warrant the payment of a subminimum wage.”

Wages must be commensurate with the individuals abilities and productivity: “All subminimum wages must be reviewed and adjusted, if appropriate, at periodic intervals. At a minimum, the productivity of hourly paid workers must be reevaluated every six months and a new prevailing wage survey must be conducted at least every twelve months;” “…any worker with a disability paid at subminimum wages, or his/her parent or guardian, may petition the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for a review of their special wage rates by a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge.” 

In addition, Many facility-based job sites for people with more severe disabilities offer other services in addition to employment. Most employees with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) receive benefits such as Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid covered health insurance, and other supports for people with low incomes and special needs. .

People with developmental disabilities who wish to work in integrated competitive work settings for at least minimum wage should be eligible for ongoing supported employment services, usually funded by Medicaid Waivers.

With these benefits and choices available to people with IDD, it is hard to imagine that individuals who choose to work in non-competitive work settings are depriving themselves of their civil rights.

************************

U.S. Department of Labor
Wage and Hour Division
(Revised July 2008)

Fact Sheet #39: The Employment of Workers with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages

This fact sheet provides general information concerning the application of section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Characteristics

Section 14(c) of the FLSA authorizes employers, after receiving a certificate from the Wage and Hour Division, to pay subminimum wages - wages less than the Federal minimum wage - to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed. The certificate also allows the payment of wages that are less than the prevailing wage to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed on contracts subject to the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) and the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act (PCA).

A worker who has disabilities for the job being performed is one whose earning or productive capacity is impaired by a physical or mental disability, including those relating to age or injury. Disabilities which may affect productive capacity include blindness, mental illness, developmental disabilities, cerebral palsy, alcoholism and drug addiction. The following, taken by themselves, are not considered to be disabilities for purposes of paying subminimum wages: education disabilities, chronic unemployment, receipt of welfare benefits, nonattendance at school, juvenile delinquency, and correctional parole or probation.

Section 14(c) does not apply unless the disability actually impairs the worker's earning or productive capacity for the work being performed. The fact that a worker may have a disability is not in and of itself sufficient to warrant the payment of a subminimum wage.

Coverage

Any person who works on or otherwise handles goods that are moving in interstate commerce is individually subject to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA. In addition, employees of enterprises operated for a business purpose that have an annual dollar volume of sales or business done of at least $500,000 are also subject to the FLSA's requirements. Furthermore, employees of public agencies; hospitals; institutions primarily engaged, in the Act's own words, “in the care of the sick, the aged, or the mentally ill or defective who reside on the premises;” schools for children who have disabilities; or preschools, elementary or secondary schools, or institutions of higher education are covered on an enterprise basis regardless of the annual dollar volume of the employer.

Requirements

Certification

Employers must obtain an authorizing certificate from the Wage and Hour Division prior to paying subminimum wages to employees who have disabilities for the work being performed. Employers shall submit a properly completed application (Form WH-226-MIS, Application for Authority to Employ Workers with Disabilities at Subminimum Wages.) and the required supporting documentation to: 

United States FS 39
Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, 230 South Dearborn Street, Room 514, Chicago, Illinois, 60604-1757; (312) 596-7195. Certificates covering employees of work centers and patient workers normally remain in effect for two years. Certificates covering workers with disabilities placed in competitive employment situations or School Work Experience Programs (SWEPs) are issued annually.

Commensurate Wage Rates

Subminimum wages must be commensurate wage rates - based on the worker's individual productivity, no matter how limited, in proportion to the wage and productivity of experienced workers who do not have disabilities performing essentially the same type, quality, and quantity of work in the geographic area from which the labor force of the community is drawn. The key elements in determining commensurate rates are:

•Determining the standard for workers who do not have disabilities, the objective gauge against which the productivity of the worker with a disability is measured.

•Determining the prevailing wage, the wage paid to experienced workers who do not have disabilities for the same or similar work and who are performing such work in the area. Most SCA contracts include a wage determination specifying the prevailing wage rates to be paid for work on the SCA contract.

•Evaluating the quantity and quality of the productivity of the worker with the disability.

All subminimum wages must be reviewed and adjusted, if appropriate, at periodic intervals. At a minimum, the productivity of hourly paid workers must be reevaluated every six months and a new prevailing wage survey must be conducted at least every twelve months.

Overtime, Child Labor and Fringe Benefits

Generally, workers subject to the FLSA, SCA, and/or PCA must be paid overtime at least 1 1/2 times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Minors younger than 18 years of age must be employed in accordance with the youth employment provisions of the FLSA and PCA. Neither the FLSA nor PCA have provisions requiring the payment of fringe benefits. Workers paid subminimum wages, however, must receive the full fringe benefits listed on the wage determination when performing work subject to the SCA.

Enforcement

The Wage and Hour Division is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the FLSA. In addition, any worker with a disability paid at subminimum wages, or his/her parent or guardian, may petition the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division for a review of their special wage rates by a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge.

Worker Notification

Each worker with a disability and, where appropriate, the parent or guardian of such worker, shall be informed orally and in writing by the employer of the terms of the certificate under which such worker is employed. In addition, employers must display the Wage and Hour Division poster, Notice to Workers with Disabilities Paid at Special Minimum Wages (WH Publication 1284).

Where to Obtain Additional Information

For additional information, visit our Wage and Hour Division Website: http://www.wagehour.dol.gov and/or call our toll-free information and helpline, available 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1-866-4USWAGE (1-866-487-9243).

This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of position contained in the regulations. U.S. Department of Labor Frances Perkins Building 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210

1-866-4-USWAGE

TTY: 1-866-487-9243Contact Us

************************

See also, Because We Care - "What is all this about subminimum wage?"

The DD News Blog - more on special wage certificates

Parents' comments on special wages for people with IDD

December 6, 2019

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