From: Jim Gashel 
Subject: Re: Documents in accessible formats
Hello Greg and listers:
I found your post on this subject to be quite informative.  I agree with
you that the standard under title II of the ADA is "effective"
communication, in which the choice of the blind person should be given
primary consideration.  Would you comment, however, on the comparable
standard under title III.  For those who may not be aware of the scope of
these different titles, title II covers state and local government
entities, and title III covers public facilities and public accommodations
that are operated by private entities.  A bank would fall into the latter
category.  Therefore, the standard for communications by a bank to its
blind customers would be subject to title III of the ADA, not to title II.  
For my part, I believe that the standard used under title III is not
nearly as clear as the standard used under title II.  The committee report
accompanying the bill even refers to restaurant menus and states that
there is not a requirement to braille them.  This does not mean that the
restaurant or the bank is prohibited from putting things into braille, it
simply means that the law would not require them to do so.  As I
understand the ADA, the point is whether or not the entity takes steps to
make the information available in some reasonably effective way.  For
example, a bank that refuses to put its statements in Braille might cite
as a defense the fact that they have a telephone access system that will
give you the same information.  For deaf-blind people, the bank might even
go so far as to designate a particular employee to provide the information
to the person in person or in some other way.  While this might meet with
some privacy objections, the employee of the bank would undoubtedly be
seen as obliged to honor the privacy rights of the individual, much as
bank employees have to honor the privacy rights of customers in millions
of other transactions.  Anyway, I believe that the standard under title
III es even more flexible than the standard under title II, and it is
certainly less specific.  Could you comment on that for us.  Rather than
adding heat to the discussion, I think we should all understand what the
requirements really say.  Incidentally, in response to the earlier comment
that Greg was citing regulations that are hard to get and frequently
changing, these particular regulations have been widely available in all
alternative formats since the time they were published, including being
posted on NFB net bulletin board.  Also, they have never changed since
originally issued about six years ago.  
Thanks, 
J. G.
---
---------------