Intro:
Welcome to the Nation's Blind Podcast, presented by the National Federation of the Blind, the transformative membership and advocacy organization of Blind Americans. Live the life you want.
Melissa Riccobono:
Hello and welcome to the Nation's Blind Podcast. I'm Melissa Riccobono, and I'm here with my co-host...
Anil Lewis:
Anil Lewis, and I'm here with my co-host, Melissa Riccobono.
Melissa Riccobono:
How are you, Anil?
Anil Lewis:
I'm doing great. How about yourself?
Melissa Riccobono:
I'm doing wonderfully.
Anil Lewis:
Wonderful.
Melissa Riccobono:
I know you had a leadership seminar this past weekend.
Anil Lewis:
Oh, my goodness.
Melissa Riccobono:
Well, the weekend that we're recording this, I realize. It's always funny in podcast land, because you record and then you don't exactly post it usually right away, but anyway.
Anil Lewis:
Exactly. And people will be listening to this two years from now.
Melissa Riccobono:
Well, that too.
Anil Lewis:
But yes, we had a wonderful leadership seminar. Congratulations to the Straight Flush Seminarians.
Melissa Riccobono:
Excellent.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah.
Melissa Riccobono:
Excellent. Yeah, I had a chance to be in with them too, and that was great. And I know that part of the leadership seminar, the talk is about our legal efforts in the National Federation of the Blind.
Anil Lewis:
Absolutely.
Melissa Riccobono:
And we have something to talk about today with our legal case, a case that the National Federation of the Blind supported. And it's a complicated case, although it's not as-
Anil Lewis:
For us non-lawyer types.
Melissa Riccobono:
Well, right, it's easy once you break it down. I don't know though, Anil.
Anil Lewis:
Says Melissa.
Melissa Riccobono:
Do you feel as if you can break it down? Because I don't know that I can.
Anil Lewis:
It doesn't make sense that you have to go to court to get the right to go to court.
Melissa Riccobono:
Go to court, yeah, I agree. And that's what this case is about.
Anil Lewis:
So for those of you who don't know, Joe Orozco is a federal government employee, and he has had some problems with his workplace technology for years, for years!
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah.
Anil Lewis:
And it seems like the Federal Government being such a huge employer of people with disabilities would get this right, but no. So from what I understand, they have the ability to issue a complaint, but the complaint doesn't have any legal teeth. I don't know.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah.
Anil Lewis:
It's like you don't have the right to take it to court when your employer doesn't provide you accommodations on the job, because your employer is the Federal Government.
Melissa Riccobono:
The Federal Government, yeah.
Anil Lewis:
I don't know. I don't know.
Melissa Riccobono:
I don't know either. But I think that's how I understand it.
Anil Lewis:
Okay.
Melissa Riccobono:
But we actually do have a couple of better people to explain this.
Anil Lewis:
Thank God.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah. So we have Chris Danielsen, our roving reporter.
Anil Lewis:
And he's a recovering lawyer, so he probably gets this, yeah.
Melissa Riccobono:
He is a recovering lawyer, he is. And then we have Ronza Othman, who is the president of the Federal Employees Division of the NFB among other things.
Anil Lewis:
Very dynamic young lady. Yes. An attorney. Yeah.
Melissa Riccobono:
She's also an attorney. She's also the president of the NFB of Maryland.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah.
Melissa Riccobono:
She wears a lot of hats. But this interview, I think cleared it up a lot for me. And so I hope that you all-
Anil Lewis:
It'll clear it up for me.
Melissa Riccobono:
Exactly.
Anil Lewis:
And for our listeners, I'm sorry.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah. We'll play this interview, but we actually have some breaking news about this case. So let's play the interview, so you can get an understanding of what this case was about, and then we can come back and we can talk to you about how it actually turned out.
Anil Lewis:
Ooh, cliffhanger.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yes.
Anil Lewis:
Let's listen.
Chris Danielsen:
Hi, everybody. This is your roving reporter again. I'm serving in that capacity again, Chris Danielsen. And I'm outside the Federal Courthouse where Orozco V Garland has just been argued. And I have a leader in the Federation with me, she holds many hats, but one of them is as part of our Federal Employees Division. Is that correct?
Ronza Othman:
Yes. We are the National Association of Blind Government employees. So federal and state and local.
Chris Danielsen:
Okay. And what is your role in that division?
Ronza Othman:
I am the president.
Chris Danielsen:
All right, excellent. So this is Ronza Othman, and Ronza describe to folks, because we've been talking about this case in the Presidential Release and the notebook and other things, describe to folks what was at stake in this case without all the legalese, if you can.
Ronza Othman:
Sure. For Federal employees and to a certain extent for members of the public, everything was at stake when it comes to being able to ensure access to information technology and communications when the Federal Government is providing that information or that technology or those communications. So essentially in a nutshell, section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act is the governing legislation that says that individuals with disabilities are entitled to access what the government puts out, procures and creates from a technology and a communications perspective. That access should be comparable to those people without disabilities. So what this particular case is about, is what happens after you file the particular complaint if you are a Federal employee and your employer does not make something equally accessible or violates 508? And as the court just asked some questions, also, what happens when members of the public raise those same issues?
Chris Danielsen:
And it sounded to me as we stand outside the courthouse, and we just heard the oral argument, it sounded to me like the government was saying, which is the opponent in this case, the agency that Mr. Orozco works for essentially, was essentially saying that nobody has the right to enforce Section 508. It's just this law that's out there that doesn't do anything. I mean, that's what I got as a, well, I used to be an attorney, but I'm a layman at least on the facts of this case. But it seemed to me like what the other side was arguing would make it a pretty toothless statute.
Ronza Othman:
Yeah, exactly what you said. I think for a little bit of a different reason, it's a little nuanced. But essentially what the government is saying is that if you are a Federal employee, you can file a 508 complaint with your agency, but you don't have a right to go to court. So what's happening in the world, what we're seeing with our members and with people with disabilities across the Federal Government, is that they're filing these 508 complaints and then they go into the circular file and nobody ever does anything with them.
And so they're not able to actually get any movement on those cases. And so what we believe Congress intended was for 508 to allow for, "All right, you go through this administrative process and if it doesn't work, you also have the ability to go to Federal court." The government is arguing, "No, as Federal employees, you don't have the right to go to Federal court. You just have to be waiting for this governmental entity that has failed to ensure equal access in the first place, to decide that it's going to do right by you and all the other individuals and provide equal access at some point, when it's the same body that failed to take any action on your 508 complaint." I mean, it's a ludicrous argument.
Chris Danielsen:
Right. And if Congress had thought that Federal agencies were doing a good job of accommodating their Federal employees with disabilities, then they probably wouldn't have passed a statute that mentioned Federal employees having remedies against the agency, right?
Ronza Othman:
Exactly. Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which is the bread-and-butter original anti-discrimination, reasonable accommodation statute, that was passed in 1973. That covers Federal employees. And it incorporates the ADA, ultimately, the employment provisions when the ADA was enacted in 1990. So decades after 1973, back in 1998, Congress amended 508 and didn't make any alterations except actually in strengthening enforcement for Federal employees. And then of course, the ADA Amendments Act as well was strengthened in 2010, 10 years later. Congress could have done something different if they didn't want Federal employees to be able to have these rights in 508. Instead, they have strengthened them, not weakened them, and the government seems to forget that point.
Chris Danielsen:
Right. So we just came out of the oral argument. We're standing in front of the Federal Court of Appeals in DC. How do you think it went today?
Ronza Othman:
Oh, I think it went really well. Carla Gilbride, who was the attorney representing Mr. Orozco, who's the appellant, she did an amazing job, she was a superstar. I think that the government's arguments did not stand up to scrutiny. I think that the panel judges were pretty clear in terms of the questions and things that they did and did not buy into, from the government's arguments. And so this is just a common sense situation. I think that came clear in Ms. Gilbride's arguments. And I'm really optimistic about the outcome.
Chris Danielsen:
And I don't know if you mentioned Ms. Gilbride is a blind attorney, and of course she's up for Senate confirmation to be counsel to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. And she's argued before the Supreme Court. It was really amazing to watch her. Of course, from our mouths to the universe's ears, you never know how these things are going to turn out, but the oral argument did seem to go really well from our perspective.
Ronza Othman:
And as a Federal employee myself, I've never felt as optimistic as I do right now, after hearing this oral argument, her arguments and also the judge's questions. I mean, we struggle, we really, really struggle every day. There are dozens and dozens of barriers that each of us encounter in our jobs. And it's just so important that the fox is not guarding the henhouse, guarding itself. And that's essentially what this case gets at.
Chris Danielsen:
Right. One of the judges made that point. He said, "If the agency is the final word, then they could literally say, we don't want to do this because we don't like blind people. And the blind person would be able to do nothing about it."
Ronza Othman:
Exactly.
Chris Danielsen:
And that can't be the result here, right.
Ronza Othman:
And that certainly was not, or did not appear to be Congress's intent.
Chris Danielsen:
All right. Fantastic. Ronza Othman, thank you so much for joining us on the Nation's Blind Podcast to talk about this.
Ronza Othman:
Thank you.
Promo:
Do you want to leave a legacy for the next generation? Join the National Federation of the Blind Legacy Society, the Dream Maker Circle. Joining is easy, you can give a portion of a bank or investment account by simply filling out a payable on death form at your bank and indicating the NFB should receive a percentage or a fixed amount upon your passing. Consider designating the NFB as a partial beneficiary of your life insurance, retirement or in a trust or will. For more information, call Patty Chang at extension 2422 or email pchang, P-C-H-A-N-G @nfb.org.
Melissa Riccobono:
Okay. So now we have our understanding, I hope. And if you need to rewind a little bit and re-listen to parts of it, you can. But I think Chris and Ronza do a very nice job breaking it down.
Anil Lewis:
I understand it better.
Melissa Riccobono:
I do as well, actually. It's a very good interview. And I love the background noise. I always love when we're on location and you can actually tell that somebody really is on location, that just makes me smile.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah, Chris Danielsen our roving reporter.
Melissa Riccobono:
Absolutely.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah.
Melissa Riccobono:
But now we have something to share about this case, right? Because that little interview, I think it was recorded maybe, was it February or January, when the... Somewhere in that area. It was a couple of months ago at least, that the actual case was heard, it wasn't really a trial, but the actual case was heard in the Court of Appeals.
Anil Lewis:
Sure. Yeah. It's relatively recent to our us recording this podcast. Again, we don't know when people are going to listen to it.
Melissa Riccobono:
Correct.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah. But that was helpful, the way they describe it. Now, I feel like I'm an attorney. But the most validating piece is it seemed ridiculous to the attorneys as well. So that was helpful to me to understand that me feeling that it was ridiculous was reasonable.
Melissa Riccobono:
Right. That the judges that were asking the questions, thought it was also ridiculous.
Anil Lewis:
I loved that too. Isn't that great?
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah.
Melissa Riccobono:
And that the government really didn't put up a great case according to Ronza and according to Chris.
Anil Lewis:
And Gilbride put up a great case.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yes.
Anil Lewis:
I wish I was there. I would have loved to have seen that.
Melissa Riccobono:
I wish I had been there as well. I was hoping to go and then couldn't go at the last moment, anyway.
Anil Lewis:
But the National Federation of the Blind makes this stuff happen, man.
Melissa Riccobono:
We do. And we have great news to share.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah.
Melissa Riccobono:
This case did go the way that Ronza and Chris thought it might.
Anil Lewis:
So Joe won?
Melissa Riccobono:
Joe won the right to be able to take the Federal Government to court.
Anil Lewis:
Oh, got it.
Melissa Riccobono:
And not only that, this opens up the opportunity for any federal employee as it stands now, to be able to go to court. And that is incredibly important, because separate from this case, the DOJ finally came out with the report before... Oh, go ahead.
Anil Lewis:
Before we pivot to DOJ, I think that to echo or highlight or amplify what you're saying, is this is what we do in the National Federation of the Blind when we're talking about our legal issues. A lot of people want to come to us and they want us to represent them or use resources to help represent them. But when we can create case law like in this case, that not only helps Joe in what he's attempting to do, but it helps other blind people, that's when we get the biggest bang for our buck. That's when we reach economies of scale. So we don't have the wherewithal and the resources to represent or provide legal representation for each and every blind person, but when we can find cases like this that positively impact or provide opportunities for more blind people to get justice, that's when we win.
Melissa Riccobono:
Blind people and people with other disabilities as well.
Anil Lewis:
Exactly.
Melissa Riccobono:
Which is a great bonus in this case, a lot of times, obviously we know blindness. So this case was brought on behalf of someone who happens to be blind and it will help blind people. But 508 and accessibility goes beyond blind people and being able for us to use the web, there are barriers for people with other types of disabilities as well.
Anil Lewis:
Absolutely.
Melissa Riccobono:
So they will now have the same right, that the Federal Government is not immune from being sued when the complaints that are being filed are being ignored for years. So this is a truly amazing victory. Now, of course, we don't know what's going to happen. It's possible that... Because this case was appealed, there was a court that first said, "No, you can't have a private action." Now, this is an appeals court, so I don't know if the government's going to try to take this higher, and so we have to watch that space.
Anil Lewis:
Well, we're good though, because Gilbride has already had a case before the Supreme Court with great success.
Melissa Riccobono:
She has.
Anil Lewis:
So we are unafraid.
Melissa Riccobono:
And I hope the government will just take their marbles and go home.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah, it just makes so much sense.
Melissa Riccobono:
And just decide, "Okay, fine."
Anil Lewis:
Especially since they're such a major purveyor of this ill. You were about to allude to the DOJ report, which I think is very telling.
Melissa Riccobono:
Right. So there's been a DOJ report. Now, let's go back a little bit into history, and I didn't know this. So 508 came about, and the last report that the Department of Justice did regarding 508 compliance by government agencies, and that means, among other things, website accessibility, it was 10 years ago.
Anil Lewis:
11, really. 2012, wasn't it?
Melissa Riccobono:
Maybe 10 and a half? I don't know, actually. Yeah, I think you're right though, because it said 10, but you're right, that would be... We are in 2023. Maybe they can't do math either, I don't know. But you're exactly right.
Anil Lewis:
But too long.
Melissa Riccobono:
Too long. And the law says they are supposed to provide updates every two years, but they haven't.
Anil Lewis:
Surprise, surprise.
Melissa Riccobono:
And no one has said to them, or if anybody has said to them, "Hey, look, you need to do this," they haven't listened. And so finally, they come out with this report. And what does this report say? Well, first of all, it's not even complete data the way that it should be. Senator Casey has a very good press release. It's going to be in our show notes along with this report. But Senator Casey's point is, "Okay, not only is this report super late, it doesn't even give all the data that we would want."
Anil Lewis:
Right.
Melissa Riccobono:
And number two, the data that it gives is horrible. More than fifty percent of websites are inaccessible for employees. So those are employee facing, so internal type of websites. And around that-
Anil Lewis:
And again, that's powerful because again, the Federal Government is one of the largest employers of people with disabilities. But when you're talking about the infrastructure that a blind person would need in order to be a competitive employee within that Federal Government space, has either access to only half of the internal resources or half of the agencies don't even allow any access to the resources. That's just untenable.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah. So you can't even do your job. You get a job, you're excited about having a job, you know you can do the job. Obviously, the person that hires you or the people that hire you believe you can do the job. And then you get there and you either can't do the job at all, or you can only do parts of it. I can't imagine how frustrating that would be.
Anil Lewis:
And the interesting dynamic about this is there are actually instances where the individuals that are employed who can't actually do the job, they're trying to say, "Well, just get paid." And I love the fact that people have enough integrity to recognize that, "No, I don't want to just sit in some place and get paid for doing nothing. I really want to be able to do the job that I'm being paid for." So that in itself, I think is very powerful.
Melissa Riccobono:
Absolutely. And not only is this a problem for employees, which of course is what this case is all about, but the other problem is that public-facing websites are just as abysmal. Kiosks and all sorts of things for veterans, for seniors, for many people who just want the same information from the government that they should be entitled to and are entitled to by law, are also being shut out.
Anil Lewis:
I love the way that Senator Casey frames it as the virtual front door, because we know that in the past, to get access to a lot of Federal services, you had to go to these public buildings, which again, presented accessibility issues in so many different ways. But the bureaucracy of it all also created extreme delays. But you were able to get through it if you had enough patience and tenacity. Now, the way to get access to these services are more and more primarily through these virtual portals. And that's the new virtual front door to all the public services that are out there. And if they're not accessible, that's less than an inconvenience. And then the physical front doors that used to exist, they're not there anymore. When you try to call someone on the phone, forget about it.
Melissa Riccobono:
Exactly.
Anil Lewis:
You try to figure out which building you need to go to, forget about that. If you can't access the virtual front door, you can't get access to the services. So I think in his press release, he said, "The virtual front door is closed."
Melissa Riccobono:
Yes.
Anil Lewis:
So let's open that virtual front door.
Melissa Riccobono:
And it doesn't have to be that way. And that is the thing that is so frustrating to me, just over and over and over. It truly does not need to be that way. And when is the government and... I mean, there's a whole host, but when are people going to open up their eyes and realize, we're here, we're here to stay. We're not going anywhere. And now you're possibly going to get sued for things that you should have been able to be sued for, quite honestly, in my opinion, years and years and years ago. But I can't imagine there's not going to be a flurry of these types of cases now that they're open, because it is so horrible. And why wouldn't people fight for the rights to do their jobs like anybody else?
Anil Lewis:
Yeah. And if suing is what it takes, then let's sue.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah.
Anil Lewis:
And I think that it's going to happen, it usually always does. When I talk to individuals that we unfortunately have had to engage in litigation to get them to the place where they're going to make things accessible, I ask them, "Why did you fight us so hard in the beginning? Because we're going to win. Because we're not going to give up." And they say, "Well, we thought it was going to be harder than it was, and we thought it was going to be more expensive."
Melissa Riccobono:
Right.
Anil Lewis:
And it ends up being more expensive when you litigate, because it's not difficult to make these interfaces, portals, websites, apps is not difficult. It just requires that the people who are developing them get the proper training, training to code websites accessibly, it's just good coding. It's nothing more than just getting people to code better and correctly. And I think that the DOJ have in these reports come out every two years, will, I think continue to amplify the need that we have for getting people in those positions who are creating these virtual portals to these virtual front doors to have the skillset to do it in a way that's appropriate and accessible.
Melissa Riccobono:
I think that's exactly correct. And talk about more money that is spent. I'm not opposed to blind people having a reader on the job if they need that accommodation.
Anil Lewis:
In some things a human reader just allows you to be more efficient doing it.
Melissa Riccobono:
That's correct. But if that human reader time can be cut in half or more, because all of a sudden these websites are accessible, what a savings for the government in that way. And what a boost in productivity and just in worker satisfaction, feelings of satisfaction.
Anil Lewis:
Amen.
Melissa Riccobono:
I get so excited to this day when I can go from beginning to end with something. Usually right now it's medical stuff, unfortunately, because I've been having a lot of medical things that I've needed to take care of. But there's an app that I use that I'm able to check in for my appointments. I'm able to view after visit summaries. I'm able to look at all my medications in one place. I'm able to send messages to my doctor. And I still feel pride and gratitude, I guess. And I shouldn't feel gratitude, but I do, because it's accessible right now. Now, I do worry what's going to happen when they update the app and everything else.
But I can't imagine what it would be like for a Federal employee who hasn't been able to do a serious big part of their job independently, to all of a sudden be able to do that. That would just be an incredible thing. And you talk about blind people being underemployed or unemployed, I think in some ways applying for jobs, it's scary as it is. But I do think, especially for part-time work and different things that people might really want to do, I think that there is a lot of fear. "Will it be accessible? Will it not be accessible? Am I going to have to fight to be able to do this job?" And if we can start taking those perceived barriers away, I think that's only going to be helpful as well.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah. I'm looking at it from the other lens that there's so much that the Federal Government can benefit from with the active engagement and employment of really qualified people with disabilities.
Melissa Riccobono:
Of course.
Anil Lewis:
Because it's not even about us being able to do jobs and work alongside our sighted peers, et cetera. It's about the unique lived experience that we bring to the table. So there's a lot of things that we just innately have to do as blind people that can enhance not only the work that we do, but the work that everyone does. I have so many examples of when I used to do job placement of how, when we went in and made accommodations and alterations to the job to make it possible for blind people to do the job, it increased the productivity for everybody. So I think that if they create opportunities for us to be part of that whole equation, then we will end up in that situation where all boats rise.
Melissa Riccobono:
So I don't know, Anil, I think we've covered this one. I think we just have to watch this space as far as what Joe Orozco will do now. I don't want to speak for him, but he definitely does now have the right to file action. And you would assume that that might be something that he does, or maybe his agency will really truly begin to talk to him and try to make a settlement or try to make changes.
Anil Lewis:
And just remember that Melissa Riccobono and I are not legal practitioners, so this is not to be considered legal advice.
Melissa Riccobono:
No, not even close.
Anil Lewis:
Well, I think this is a major win. I'm looking forward to the opportunities that are going to be created as a result of this. So let's go, let's do it.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah, I completely agree. And we'd love to hear from you if you're a Federal employee and have had difficulties at your job. Or if you were a Federal employee and maybe left because you had difficulties. Or if you're a person who's trying to get benefits or services, and maybe you can tell us the website you wish most that was accessible, that isn't right now. We always love to hear from you on the Nation's Blind podcast.
Anil Lewis:
And tell us some positive stuff too.
Melissa Riccobono:
Oh, definitely.
Anil Lewis:
If you want to shout out a Federal Government or entity that's doing it right, Let us know so we can shame all the others.
Melissa Riccobono:
And that's what it's about. So that's a really good point, yes, let's get all the positive ones so that we can say, "Oh, look, this agency's doing it great over here." Or, "This website's got it right." Yeah, that's a really good point. I like that idea. So you can definitely find us on Facebook by searching for National Federation of the Blind. And you can just comment or post on our page and just comment that you're talking about the Nation's Blind podcast. And that will get to us for sure.
Anil Lewis:
Yeah. Or you can find us on Twitter or at nfp_voice.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah.
Anil Lewis:
Throw in the #virtualfrontdoor.
Melissa Riccobono:
Ooh. Ooh, I like that. You can do that on Facebook too.
Anil Lewis:
I didn't clear that with our comms team, so don't tell them, as long as they don't know.
Melissa Riccobono:
Yeah, they're not listening. You can also call us. We'd love to hear your stories. 410-659-9314, extension 2444.
Anil Lewis:
And of course, we can be reached by email at podcastnfb.org. Well, I hope this was edifying, educational, empowering for you, whether you're a Federal government employee or not. But remember, until the next podcast, you can live the life you want.
Melissa Riccobono:
Blindness is not what holds you back.
Outro:
We'd love your feedback. Email podcast at nfb.org or call 410-659-9314, extension 2444.