Pre-employment and the ADA: Disability Questions and Medical Exams. Presenter: Sharon Rennert. >> RACHEL: Hello, good afternoon everybody. Welcome to the first of three webcasts about the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. My name is Rachel Kosoy. I am with the Disability Law Resource Project, your sponsor for today's event. I will be moderating the webcast, and voicing your questions to the presenter. Before we get started, I want to remind you about sending in questions. In order to submit a question, you can click the submit question button at the bottom of your RealOne Player screen, or you can simply address an E-mail to webcast@ilru.org. Again, it's webcast@ilru.org. So please go ahead and if you have questions you know you'd like an answer, you can go ahead and E-mail those in now or at any point during the presentation. And I will pose your questions to the presenter as she pauses to take questions. If anybody has any technical difficulties today, please give us a call. Our number is (713)520-0232 and hit 0 and the operator can connect you with somebody to help you. Okay, moving on. Today's topic is pre-employment and the ADA: Disability questions and medical exams. Part 2 of this series on employment issues will take place the last Wednesday in June, June 30th, and on that date we will address smart disability related employment policies. The third part of the series will take place the last Wednesday in July, July 28th and that day we will address challenging accommodations issues and you will be able to ask questions to experts from the job accommodation network. Today's webcast is going to focus on the dos and the don'ts when its comes to asking disability-related questions and requesting medical exams. Our presenter today is definitely the best presenter on the topic. We have with us today Sharon Rennert. She is a senior attorney advisor with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or the EEOC. For over ten years, Ms. Rennert has formulated the commission's policy interpretations of the ADA. She was the key drafter of the EEOC's guidance on reasonable accommodation. She specializes in providing private and public sector employers with practical approaches to complying with the ADA. In addition, Sharon had also developed and delivered many training programs as well as seminars and workshops for EEOC staff, attorneys, human resource professionals and certainly persons with disabilities. So with that little bit of introduction, I'd like to go ahead and turn it over to you, Sharon. >> SHARON: Thanks very much, Rachel and good afternoon to everyone I hope is out there. Otherwise, Rachel and I are having a nice conversation this afternoon. What I want to start is to review the ADA employment rules regarding pre-employment questions and medical examinations. I'm sure many people out there are very familiar with it or maybe slightly familiar. Sometimes it can get a bit confusing. So I want to kind of take the first 15 or 20 minutes just to remind us all about what the ADA rules are when it comes to applicants and employers and the questions that can and cannot be asked, when things can be asked. And then I'll open it up for your questions. But to remind us all at the beginning, the ADA rather uniquely for the employment discrimination laws actually sets out some dos and don'ts about what questions an employer can ask, cannot ask, or the timing of asking certain things. And that is unique. The other civil rights laws may discourage asking certain questions, may say it's not advisable to ask certain questions, but the other civil rights laws don't actually have prohibitions, whereas the ADA does. And the reason has to do with the fact that prior to the ADA, those of us who are old enough to remember this, employers routinely asked questions about applicant's medical history, about what kinds of medical conditions they may have, what they've been treated for, and oftentimes employers made decisions based on answers they got, and they may have gotten very little information. Maybe all they knew was that somebody had a condition or maybe at some point in their life did or a family member did, and that may have been the deciding factor to rule out a person's application. Of course the employer didn't have to say that that was the deciding factor. The employer could say, oh, there was something in your qualifications, or there was something in your education, and the employer might really stop at something that really should never have been a major issue to begin with. They never really gave serious consideration to somebody's true qualifications. So that's the reason when Congress got around to drafting the ADA, it decided to put some prohibitions on when employers could delve into medical issues. And so we really divide the application process into two parts. The first part -- what we've come to call the pre-offer period, obviously before a job offer is given to an applicant. The second part, the post-offer period, after a job offer has been made, but before the individual actually starts working. And during the pre-offer period, as I think everybody is well aware, employers are prohibited from asking questions that are likely to elicit whether or not an applicant has a disability. That's the standard we use. As with most requirements under the ADA, there is usually a standard that's been adopted. And the same is true here, that employers have been told they cannot ask questions that are likely to elicit whether or not an applicant has a disability. In other words, finding out that someone doesn't have a disability is just as bad as finding out that somebody does. The whole idea here is that the employer should not be focusing questions on whether or not applicants might have disabilities. And so that means a wide range of questions are off limits. Now, clearly, do you have a disability is off limits. Asking about the presence of specific medical conditions, whether currently somebody has them or maybe even in the past. So, again, for those of us old enough to remember, there was oftentimes a very long printed list that employers would hand out that would say something like, you know, do you have now or have you ever had any of the following, and it would list every kind of physical and mental conditions that most of us were aware of and many things we'd never even heard of before. And sort of go through all the major body parts and, you know, wanting the know about our physical and mental condition. Those are illegal during this pre-offer period. Asking people about prescription medications, asking people about hospitalization, all those kinds of questions are illegal. Asking people about workers' compensation history is illegal. Again because maybe that answer reveals whether or not someone has a disability. So, again, you can't ask questions about that. Well, that's a lot of things you're not supposed to ask questions about. So what is an employer supposed to ask questions about? Obviously, about the ability to do the job. The employer can ask all kinds of questions about the ability to perform the essential functions of the job, the marginal functions of a job. Obviously they can ask about work history, educational history, licenses or certificates that individuals have to have to do certain jobs, all those kinds of questions can be asked. Employers can ask applicants to demonstrate an ability to perform specific job functions. That's permissible to do. They can require physical agility tests. These are usually tests where you might be asked to climb or run or lift and these kinds of tests can be done. What kind of tests cannot be done? Medical tests, medical examinations. Again, employers are supposed to stay away from anything that is medically oriented. So a medical examination, and medical examinations can be targeted on physical conditions, but also mental conditions. You could not give somebody a psychological examination if that psychological test was designed to, say, diagnose a psychological impairment. That would be illegal to do at this pre-offer stage. Now, oftentimes employers and applicants wonder, well, what about reasonable accommodation. You know, can employers can questions about that? Well, employers cannot ask the sort of universal question or uniform question of every one, do you need reasonable accommodation to do this job? That's around about way in essence of asking do you have a disability because who needs reasonable accommodations, who is entitled to reasonable accommodations, it's going to be people with disabilities. So you can't in that roundabout way ask the question. So you're not going to be able to ask of everyone do you need reasonable accommodations? That's different from asking the question, you know, can you perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation? The difference is if I ask about can you perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation, the focus of that question is on performing the job. The focus is not on whether you need an accommodation. Somebody who doesn't need an accommodation, who does not need one can say, yes, I can perform the job. You don't even have to address the accommodation issue. Similarly, if I do need an accommodation, I can give the same answer. Yes, I can perform the job. I don't have to start talking about the accommodation, but obviously we can contrast that with a question that directly says, well, do you need a reasonable accommodation? There an applicant has to address head on the issue of accommodation, and that is going to be prohibited. But we do have an exception. We do have an exception, and that is where an employer knows that somebody has a disability. Now, how is an employer going to know someone has a disability? A couple of ways -- one, it's obvious. The employer can tell by looking at the person, observing the person that there is a disability. Maybe it's because the person uses a wheelchair, maybe it's because the person is missing a limb, maybe it's because the person is blind. A person can tell that there is a disability, but an employer may also know that someone has a disability because the individual volunteered the information. This is the situation where it's a hidden disability. You can't tell by looking at the applicant that she has a disability, but the applicant has chosen to volunteer the information. So the employer knows the person has a disability. With that knowledge of disability, the employer is sitting there thinking maybe with that disability it might pose some problems performing certain job functions. And we wouldn't want the employer to be thinking, oh, well, maybe there is a problem, but I can't ask any questions and so you know what, I'm going to be safe rather than sorry and I'm just going to eliminate this person from consideration. Obviously that is counterproductive. Nobody wants that result. So instead when an employer knows a person has a disability, and it is reasonable for the employer to wonder, to question, maybe with this disability there might be some difficulties performing specific job functions, in that situation an employer is entitled to ask the applicant two questions. The first question is would you need a reasonable accommodation to perform the following job function? So the idea here is that the employer is speculating, wondering, is there going to be a problem performing a certain job function rather than the employer just, you know, having that going around in his head. Better to ask the question, will you need a reasonable accommodation to perform the specific job function I'm thinking about? If the answer to that question is yes, I would need an accommodation, then the employer is entitled to ask the obvious follow-up question. Well, what form of accommodation would you need? So those are the two questions the employer can ask. Will you need a reasonable accommodation to perform a specific job function where I, as the employer, reasonably can wonder could there be a problem, could there be a need for accommodation? Will you need a reasonable accommodation? And if the answer is yes, what accommodation would you need? Those are the two questions about accommodations to perform the job that an employer can raise. Obviously this is going to come about probably in a job interview. The employer can do that. Notice, however, the employer is not allowed to ask about the disability. So the fact that somebody might -- who is using a wheelchair -- might start talking about, yes, I would need an accommodation to do this job function, the employer can't follow up by saying, and by the way, why do you use a wheelchair? That would be an illegal question to ask. Okay, so that's sort of broadly the pre-offer period. The one other thing about accommodation to mention is employers can put into their job advertisements or their job notices, however they are advertising or on websites that they do provide reasonable accommodation. They can say that as a general statement that they provide it. They can specifically say they provide it for the job application process, and they can invite applicants to let them know if, indeed, an applicant will need an accommodation in order to access the job application process. A person might need to get written materials in an alternative format. A person who uses a wheelchair, in order to come in for a job interview, may need to make sure that the facility is accessible. A person who is deaf may need to request a sign language interpreter. So there may be different accommodations that applicants will need in order to equally compete for a job and in order to make sure that the employer gets those requests in a timely way, the employer can put on all of its job ads or job notices that it does welcome requests for accommodation for the application and interviewing process. Okay, very broadly, we've gone through the pre-offer period. Once an employer makes a job offer, we now move to the post-offer period. And this is the opportunity for an employer basically to ask all the questions that they were prohibited from asking during the pre-offer period and if they wish to do the medical examinations that they could not do pre-offer. Basically, the easiest way to think of the post-offer period is everything that an employer was prohibited from doing pre-offer, it is permitted to do post-offer. All the questions they can ask, all the medical exams that they want to order. The only requirement here is that the employer ask the same questions and perform the same medical examination for all individuals who are offered this type of job. In other words, what the ADA does not want to have happen is an employer single out somebody with a known disability or someone who looks like he or she might have a disability and say we don't do medical exams for anyone else but you because you have a disability. We want a medical exam. Or because you have an obvious disability, we have questions we want you to answer about disability or tell us do you have these other 50 medical conditions potentially? You can't single out someone with a disability. Instead, an employer has to decide for a particular job category, so before thee even start interviewing for this job category, we will require post-offer medical examinations or we will require individuals in the post-offer period to answer these disability-related questions. That's the only requirement. Basically, don't single out people with disabilities. Other than that, the employer pretty much has discretion to be doing any type of medical exam and asking just about any kind of disability-related question. Now, what is the employer doing with the answers to those questions or the results of the medical examination? Well, we hope that they are going ahead with the hiring and that nothing will have changed and is that the individual will now be told a starting date. But in some instances with the information, the employer starts having second thoughts. Gee, maybe I've made a mistake and this person is not really qualified. Now, what an employer should do here is make sure it really has all the information necessary reassess whether this person is truly qualified. Obviously meaning able to perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation. And so here an employer would really need to make sure that they've got accurate information about the person, that the information they have about a person's medical condition, does it really signify that they're suddenly unqualified, what's changed from the pre-offer period? Clearly the employer thought the individual was qualified, hence there was a job offer. Maybe there needs to be some more questions asked. Maybe there needs to be a discussion about reasonable accommodation now. Maybe, if the employer has concerns about health and safety risks, there has to be a direct threat assessment made, but I think the important thing here is that the employer bears a burden not to act precipitously, not to get immediately rattled when they learn some medical information that may sound a bit disconcerting, but instead to follow up and ask, you know, the appropriate kinds of follow-up questions of the individual. Maybe it means doing some follow up medical testing. That's permissible as long as the follow-up is based on what the employer has learned through the initial questions or the initial medical exam, those kinds of follow ups with appropriate. But the employer is going to have a burden to explain if they're going to ultimately decide to revoke the job offer, why is it that this person became unqualified? And in order to do that appropriately, and not in a discriminatory way, an employer really needs to make sure it's acting on current, objective information. It has looked at the direct threat factors, if that's the issue is health or safety, that the employer really understands what it means to say this person poses a direct threat and they can show through objective information, yes, they do. That they've looked at the reasonable accommodation issue. So an employer is going to have to do some work here if they really feel someone is now unqualified. So that in a nutshell is sort of the pre- and the post-offer segments and the general ADA rules that apply to each. So at this point, Rachel, maybe what we want to do is open it up for the questions. >> RACHEL: Okay. Great. They are coming in. So we'll get started. One of them is if an employer wants an evaluation to determine what accommodations are necessary, who is responsible for paying for the evaluation? Is it the employer or the employee? >> SHARON: That's a little bit tough because I'm not sure what the person means by an evaluation. I'm not sure if -- I mean, the way the question makes it sound, if it were talking isn't about the disability itself, whether or not it's a disability, but rather what might be appropriate accommodations and I'm not sure what kind of evaluation an employer would have in mind here or whether there is a true need for it. The ADA doesn't dictate in general things about who pays for these kinds of -- whether it's medical exams or evaluations. Some of how we've approached who pays is by who asking for something. If the employer is the one seeking this, without it I can't tell something, then that may put more of an obligation that the employer consider paying for it. On the other hand, if the individual is stepping forward saying I need an accommodation that I really need think you need to do an evaluation to find out what it is, at that point the employer may be able to say we're not paying for an evaluation. We are still going to talk to you, do you have ideas? Or we can call job accommodation network and maybe there is no need for any formal evaluation here. But if the individual is kind of pressing for an evaluation, then that may be something that the individual would have to pick up the cost for. >> RACHEL: I'm not sure -- I would definitely invite the person who sent in this question to send in any more specifics if you'd like to. One question we get that's kind of similar to this may be -- maybe you could address that, Sharon, is evaluations of the work site specifically for people who have carpal tunnel or related kind of disability and, you know, oftentimes companies have somebody or they would bring somebody in who would look at the computer space and set it up most appropriately for the person. >> SHARON: That's certainly something employers can do and many employers are those kind of ergonomic injuries, employers want to be proactive and rather than guess at things, many employers do want to bring in somebody to do those kinds of evaluations. But if somebody comes forward and says I have carpal tunnel syndrome and I need you to do certain things, that doesn't necessarily mean that an employer has to get that kind of full fledged evaluation or, you know, that might be a situation where the individual wants it, the individual might have to pay for it. On the other hand, if the individual says, you know, I know from consulting with my therapist, my physical therapist or occupational therapist or my doctor that I need to have an adjustable keyboard or I need to get a different chair working with my orthopedist, but here is the kind of chair I need to have, that the employer doesn't necessarily need to have a if you'll valuation. They can certainly further information from the employee or ask for further information from whoever the employee has gotten the treatment from, but that's not necessarily where there has to be any kind of formal evaluation of the workplace. If the employer insists on it, thinking that's a good idea before we do anything, then I think that the employer would have to pick up the cost of that. And it may make sense, as I say, but it's not necessarily required as a part of the accommodation or as part of the interactive process. >> RACHEL: Okay. And I think that also kind of hints at the whole issue of documentation and there are a couple of questions about this. If you could talk a little bit about the intersection of medical exams and medical information and documentation. And by documentation, I mean if people are requesting an accommodation, then obviously they need to provide some sort of documentation that they are eligible or covered by the ADA for the reasonable accommodations, and can you talk a little bit about what employers can actually ask for? >> SHARON: Okay. There is a lot in there. Let's see if I can answer everything. When an individual is asking for an accommodation, as we all know, the employer at that point should talk to the person what many people refer to as the interactive process should begin and there are two areas of discussion possible. The first area could be to determine -- for the employer to determine does the person have a disability as defined by the ADA? Now, in some instances there is no need for that kind of discussion, it's obvious that the person has a very serious impairment, a severe impairment, so you're not going to have any discussion, it's pretty obvious. In other instances, employers choose not to have that kind of discussion. They don't know for sure whether it's an ADA disability, and let's be frank about it, probably the majority of situations are going to fall into a kind of gray area. I mean, things that will be obviously disabilities at one end of the spectrum. At the other end, things that are obviously not disabilities, and as usual, in life, most of the things are going to fall into that vast middle area. And so certainly employers are entitled to talk to the person and potentially talk to and obtain documentation from the individual's treating healthcare worker about whether or not it's an ADA disability. And I think what's important here is to remember as an employer you want to have this kind of followup or that individuals with disabilities understand why they may be getting questions or why an employer is asking for documentation from the treating healthcare worker. This is aimed solely at determining if somebody has an ADA disability. This should not be about the employer trying to become the person's doctor, or to second guess medical treatments. Rather the aim here is strictly to learn if somebody has an ADA disability. So the questions that an employer asks of a person or the questions that a person may put in a letter or ask of a healthcare worker should all be aimed at determining does this person have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity? Or does the person have a record, a history, a past physical or mental impairment substantially limits a major life activity? Now, I always encourage the employers not use the formal legal language, because unless you're talking to lawyers, nobody is going to understand what you just asked them. So break it down into plain English; but that's the purpose of asking questions. That's the purpose for seeking documentation. But to emphasize again, that's a choice. Employers are not required to do any of this. Many employers choose to kind of either, you know, we just don't care if it's a disability. We're going to focus our attention on the accommodation part of the request, or, you know, they'll say for right now we'll put that issue of disability aside and maybe we'll come back to it, but let's focus our attention more on the request for accommodation. And that's the second major issue of discussion is going to be about the request itself. What is the person asking for? Why do they need it? Is it clear to an employer the connection between the disability, the workplace issue, the barrier, the limitation and the accommodation the person is asking for? Now, again, in many instances there will be no discussion because it's so obvious what the limitation is and why the person needs the accommodation she's asking for. I mean, an obvious example, somebody asking for a sign language interpreter for next week's staff meeting. You know, a person who is deaf you understand immediately what the limitation is. You understand why the requested accommodation addresses that limitation, so there is no need for any real discussion there. But in other situations, it may not be clear. It may be clear to the person asking, but an employer who is not an expert on this particular disability, on the limitations that may be occurring on the accommodation, and honestly, I don't get it, please explain to me in more detail. It may be that it's not clear what the limitation is. You know, we're going to have to have more of a talk about that. Usually this part of the discussion -- it's very important to have it with the individual making the request. In some instances, it may help to also talk again to the person's healthcare worker, but when it really comes to what the limitation is in the workplace, let's face it, the individual is going to have a better idea than his or her healthcare worker, about the job duties, about the working environment, about how it is that the disability is having some limitations occurring, and so it would be a mistake to focus this conversation, this discussion strictly with the healthcare worker. The healthcare worker may have something to add, but this is where the employer and the individual really need to have a very full discussion to ensure that the employer understand exactly what accommodation is needed, why it's needed, and so the employer can then also potentially offer some counterproposals. So that's the second sort of major area of focus. I think that kind of gets to your documentation information. >> RACHEL: I think so. Yes. There is one more, and I know we've crept over from when we were talking about medical exams and gotten into documentation which has taken us to during employment instead of pre-employment. I'm going to give you this one last question because it came in during employment and then we're going to shift back. But this is really a follow-up to what you were just discussing, and the question is can an employer insist that the employee visit the company doctor? >> SHARON: First of all, it's going to depend on what information the employer already has. If the employer already has sufficient information to know that the person has an ADA disability, and sufficient information to know what the accommodation is that the person needs, why he or she needs it, you know, exactly what the problem is, then to insist that the person go to any doctor, even back to her own doctor, could well be a violation of the ADA. If you really have all the information to answer those two ADA questions, whether it's an ADA disability and why they need an accommodation, and what the accommodation is for, if that's all already been answered sue fishily, then you can't be insisting the person go to anybody's doctor. But if they haven't been answered, if there is still uncertainty, EEOC has encouraged employers first of all to allow the person to go to his or her own healthcare worker or to try to get the information the employer is looking for from the individual's healthcare worker. We've encouraged it, but did bottom line is an employer could say I want you to go to my doctor. I want you to go to my healthcare worker. They can do that. But, again, what I think is important here is so I think individuals need to cooperate. Even if you feel that you'd rather go to your own, I think individuals need to cooperate and be willing to go to the healthcare worker that the employer designates, but on the employer's side, I think it is important to also get information from the individual healthcare worker. An employer needs to be sensitive to the expertise that its doctor has and whether it's the same expertise that the individual's doctor has. I mean, for example, a lot of employers may have doctors that handle their workers' comp claims, but if somebody is coming not with a workers' comp claim, but if it's somebody with a psychological exam, it's not the kinds of physical injuries that the workers' comp doctors are dealing with, if it's something like epilepsy or Parkinson's, again, something that the workers' comp doctors may not have much familiarity with, then an employer should have some concern about the assessments they are making. Do they have the expertise to offer that the specialist, if the individual sees an epilepsy specialist or Parkinson's specialist, the employer may be missing some very critical information here. Just to sort of point out that we really haven't veered so much off topic. Everything that we're talking about here that may sound as it's all about employees can also apply to applicants. If an applicant were to ask for an accommodation for the application process, not job now, but for the application process, an employer would be entitled to get into this because the person is asking for an accommodation right now in order to compete for this job, I need an accommodation. And so to this extent, it would be fair for the employer to get into the disability issue without violating the rules we talked about earlier because the person has asked for an accommodation. Now, you can't be asking -- let's say, ask for an accommodation for a learning disability. That does not give the employer the right to ask about, well, have you had back injuries and other things they might be entitled to ask post-offer. The questions that the employer is able to ask have got to be geared to the disability the person has put on the table in their request for an accommodation for the application process. I'm not talking about an accommodation to do the job. An employer can't get into these issues then, but for the application process they could. So everything we're talking about, you can just move it back or post-offer period if that's where it comes up about the need for an accommodation. The same thing in the post-offer period, all these things that we're talking about would apply. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. All right, I see we're getting some questions that are going to be a little challenging in terms of proving things. This question comes in concerning the issue of post-offer stage, and the fact that medical exams questions, et cetera, aren't allowed as long as the same request is made of all applicants. How would one prove that the employer requested the same thing of all applicants? It says, for instance, the employer might not state directly since you have a disability we're going to need to get a medical exam, but how would you -- you know, how would you know for sure? >> SHARON: Well, the individual might not know. I mean, sometimes an individual may be going on a gut reaction. You know, where there is a kind of standardized form that somebody is handed would seem to suggest that a person is not being singled out. But where an individual feels, wait a minute, something doesn't seem right or it was described before they ever met me all the stages in the process, including post-offer what may happen, but you know, I have an obvious disability and when I came in for the interview for the first time they knew I had a disability and now suddenly they're doing something that they didn't say before was part of the process. You know, a person may have a sense that something different is going on. The individual only needs that to contact the EEOC. It's not that the individual has to be the investigator and make these determinations. If the individual has a sense of it, then they can come to EEOC and tell us, you know, I have a sense. I got asked to take a medical exam and I don't think they routinely ask people to take medical exams or I suddenly got a whole bunch of questions post-offer that I don't think they routinely ask these kinds of disability questions. And I don't think there was anything that I said that would have warranted any of this. So that happens all the time. People come to EEOC, they just have some sense and then it's our job to take over and to investigate and we ask to talk to the people involved in the hiring process. We ask for their standard forms. We ask for their hiring manuals that often lay out exactly what's to be done and what's not to be done. And if indeed we find that that ended up singling people out because, wait a minute, your forms say nothing about medical exams and yet here you sent somebody. And the person that you sent them to says, yeah, they never had a medical exam done, first time you've ever called them. It's that kind of thing where we could find out that an employer may have violated. >> RACHEL: Okay. Do you have any sense of the time frame in which that kind of investigating would be completed? >> SHARON: I really can't say. It is supposed to be within 180 days of filing. The EEOC offices do their best to meet that deadline. Some offices do far better than that. Some other due to the volume of charges coming in May not be able to. So I can't even give you like a standard here. Obviously as soon as a person believes that his or her rights have been violated, I would encourage them to contact EEOC immediately. Sometimes if it seems fairly clear-cut, the issue and what has happened, we may be able to move more quickly, but I don't want to mislead anyone and suggest that, yes, within a day or two or a week or two that means we can handle this. It still probably would take longer than that, but where somebody comes and it seems pretty clear-cut we've got a violation, then we may be able to move more quickly than with some other cases. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. Okay, the next question is -- let's see, once somebody has been offered a position, if they are asked to reveal their diagnosis, must they do so? >> SHARON: Well, certainly if an employer is asking everyone who has been offered a position in a certain job category, please identify any current medical diagnoses that you have, then yes, a person is going to have to answer the question. Lying is always a bad idea because an employer can legitimately and lawfully revoke a job offer if they learn you've lied. If they have a right as an employer to ask a certain question, however uncomfortable it made you or however you might object to it, if it's a lawful question, the employer was legally entitled to ask it and the person lies in response, then the employer can revoke the job offer based on discovering that a person lied, which is why lying is never going to be encouraged. If somebody really is uncomfortable with the question, they might choose to leave it blank. It's not lying. You know, you can kind of pretend that, oops, I missed that one, and maybe nobody will notice it and maybe nobody will come back to it, but if they do come back to it, you know, you can also say you'd prefer not to answer it. But again, you've also now given them grounds to not hire you. You know, we had a right to ask. They refused to answer the question. Again, it's a neutral reason to revoke the job offer. So I appreciate a lot of people, especially with hidden disabilities or even obvious ones that may be obvious there is a disability but not what it is are reluctant to have to put it out there and then I know people feel -- it feels like an invasion of their privacy, and I appreciate that, but it doesn't change the fact that post-offer an employer would be entitled to ask those questions. You know, when I work with employers, I encourage employers to think about these things. Why are you asking to appreciate people on the other side and how they feel about it so that employers have really thought out the implications of asking these questions. The bottom line is as long as they are asking it for everyone they are hiring for a specific job category, it's lawful. And people may have to just kind of deal with it and be willing to answer the question. >> RACHEL: I would think also -- this is my own editorializing here -- that if an employer asks for this information, in some ways it can put them in a more precarious position. Because now the employee can say my employer knew that I had this disability and that's why they treated me this way or -- >> SHARON: Well, certainly. It certainly takes away to a great extent an employer's ability as you're pointing out to say I didn't know about the disability. And it's very hard for employers to make the argument, well, our human resources people knew, but they never told other people about it. I mean, that may be true, but now an employer is going to have to try and prove that and make that case that it never got out. So I think you're raising a very good reason why employers really need to think through why do I want this information? Because, yes, once you know about it, you really can't be -- say any more I never knew about it. Of course the other thing are the confidentiality requirements. Immediately they will attach to the medical information and so employers do need to handle that information compliant with the ADA confidentiality requirement. So, you know, it's not something that should be done lightly. But if employers go through that assessment and still decide they want to ask the question, then as hard as it is for certain applicants to have to answer them, as I said, they may be forced to. >> RACHEL: Okay. And by answering that question you've really answered another question that was asked, but I'd like to go ahead and pose this question to you because it may give you an opportunity to clarify another term. The question has to also do with post-offer medical exams, and the question is can employers give any and all medical exams or can they just examine the facilities necessary to perform that job? What about job related and consistent with business necessity? >> SHARON: I'm glad you asked it because this does come up a lot and it gives me the opportunity to make the clarification. It certainly makes imminent sense that employers Taylor any medical exams they are doing post-offer to exams that their relationship to the job the person has been offered. In other words, the legal term that's often used is it's job-related and consistent with business necessity. Putting it a little more into plain English, what does this medical exam tell me about the person's ability to safely perform the essential functions of the position? You know, if the exam tells me nothing about the person's ability to accurately, safely perform the essential functions of the position, why do I, as an employer, want to require this medical examination? So there is a kind of common sense that it should bear that relationship, but legally an employer is not required to have that kind of relationship between the medical exam and the job, rather legally the employer can do any medical exam it wishes as long as all individuals offered this type of job must undergo the same medical examination. So there is no requirement that it be tied to the specifics of the job. Now, I think that most employers do think about this and then don't want to just order any old medical examination; particularly, since most employers are going to pay for this. The more medical exams they order up, the more expensive it becomes. So I think as a practical matter, as a financial matter, many employers do want to make sure there is a connection. But legally there doesn't have to be, and I know that does confuse people. Legally, it can be any medical examination the employer chooses as long as everyone is going to be subjected to it; but very strongly as a best practice, as a matter of common sense, financial sense, employers really should know in advance that there is something about a particular medical exam that will help me to be sure this person is qualified to do the job I've offered them, rather than just ordering up whatever medical exam comes to mind. >> RACHEL: Okay, that actually was really helpful to make sure that that's clear for everybody. Okay, the next question is about if a person is returning to work after having been out on a leave related to their disability, and they are now transferring to a new department where they are being interviewed. So this is the in the same company but new department, can the interviewer ask about the reason for the leave and any information related to the interviewee's current health? >> SHARON: Okay, in this situation where the person is applying for a new job, but it happens to be within the company she already works for, in this situation the employee is considered a job applicant. Yes, she works for the company currently, but what she is doing right now is applying for a new job in this company. So for ADA purposes, we consider her in this context an applicant. Which means that the rules apply that we've talked about. It's pre-offer and post-offer. So pre-offer, she's going through the interview stage. An interviewer could not be asking disability-related questions, questions likely to elicit information about disability. So asking somebody about sick leave that they have taken would be illegal. That's a post-offer question. Now what may need to happen here is kind of similar to when I discussed in my presentation about, you know, what about where an employer knows someone has a disability and they are kind of concerned, but maybe there is going to be a need for accommodation. And well you can't ask about the disability, but we do have an exception. You can ask about the need for accommodation. Well, I think that may sort of apply here. That it may be very hard to kind of -- how do I put out of my mind, I'm the interviewer? It may be a small company or even in large companies, I know that this person has been out on medical leave, and how do I know everything is fine? Well, how can I get that information without ever really talking about the medical condition? Well, I could do it by talking about why we need somebody to start on a certain date. Why we need somebody ready to go. You know, here is this big project and it's got a deadline and we need to know that as soon as we hire somebody, they're ready to hit the ground running. This is something that's going to require an ability to work a lot of overtime. You know, in other words, paint a portrait, an honest portrait of what this job is about and then ask the question, would it pose any problems to you? Notice how I never brought up leave, anything about medical condition, but that's really what I sense the interviewer is concerned about. Is about this person's ability to do the job, to be there, to be reliable, and there are other ways to get that information which are just fine. They are lawful that really tell you more, quite frankly, than probably asking the illegal questions are going to tell you because really what you want to know is here very specifically it's what we need, what the job is going to require and the kind of working conditions, any kinds of deadlines, all of that kind of information, does it pose any problems? That's the way the question would need to be phrased, but this is a person who we would consider an applicant, and by the way, I know Rachel you have put up a lot of EEOC materials, but just to make clear, this situation is discussed in the EEOC guidance on disability-related inquiries and medical exams directed to employees. We do have just this scenario about someone who is applying for a new job in the company she already works for. >> RACHEL: Yeah, and it is good that it's in there because it is a very common question that we hear. Okay, our next question comes from somebody who is working on contract. Now, to the person who is asking this question as you're listening, I'm paraphrasing and I hope that I've captured your question. If I miss something, please go ahead and send in an additional E-mail; but what I understand from it is that this is somebody, a local government is contracting with this person to be their ADA coordinator, and there is a lot of explanation of a lot of the important things that this individual has done for this local government, but the question seems to be is he protected by the ADA? And I'm not sure if there is some controversy there because he does mention that they knew of his disability before they contracted with him. >> SHARON: Well, the issue here is going to be this contract. Independent contractors are not considered employees, and if you are not an employee, then you would not have the protection of the ADA's employment provisions; but that is a determination EEOC often needs to make. Is somebody an independent contractor or is the person an employee? It's perfectly possible for someone to be an employee and have a contract, be it with a state agency, a local agency or a private company. So the mere fact that there is a contract relationship doesn't answer the question is somebody an employee? And that's often something EEOC has to get into. Someone thinks that their rights are violated, they think they are an employee, I would encourage them to contact the EEOC. Don't try and figure out, well, I have a contract, am I an employee? I'm not an employee? Really let EEOC deal with that. Obviously make clear with EEOC you do have a contract relationship with the agency, so that we can immediately be aware of it and we can start looking into it; but many people who have contract relationships ultimately we do find them to be employees and, therefore, will treat the case like any other ADA employment case. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. And it sounds like it's a topic for a whole other webcast. >> SHARON: Yeah, I'm sure. >> RACHEL: Okay, now, I have some questions that are -- I would say seeking some advice. If I have an obvious disability that the employer will know about when he or she sees me, is it better to tell them before I get to the interview or wait until I am at the interview? >> SHARON: You know, it's a good question and it's a tough question, and it's frankly out of my expertise. I don't want people to think that -- there is no right or wrong answer here. There is certainly no legal answer here. I mean, there is nothing that legally requires a person to notify an employer that she has a disability, whether before she shows up for the interview, you know, during an interview. It's a very personal question and I'm sure there are a lot of people far better qualified than I am to offer answers to it. I think a person needs to -- what I can offer based on experience though is I think some of it comes down to a person's comfort level. Some people probably would prefer to say something ahead of time, while others will feel just as passionately, no, don't say anything at all. And I think, therefore, some of it has to be your own comfort level about saying something. I do think what will be critical, whether you say something in advance or, you know, how you're going to handle yourself in an interview, you need to keep things focused on your qualifications for the job. You don't want to get things sidetracked -- obviously employers are not permitted to ask about your disability. And quite frankly, some employers feel uncomfortable -- people sometimes feel they may be doing an employer a favor by not surprising them and just showing up and it's perfectly obvious that there is a disability. So employers in a way can feel uncomfortable. Why did you tell me this? I can't ask you about it? What am I supposed to do with this information? It's very, very tricky, but I think the bottom line is sort of one's own comfort level, but remembering that you really aren't supposed to be talking -- educating people about disability, you're educating them about why you are the best candidate for the job. And that should be the focus and as long as you can do that, then I think, you know, whether you want to say something in advance or you want to wait until you get there, that's what the goal should be is how do I keep getting that conversation back to my qualifications, how great I am and let me convince you I'm the person that you want to hire. >> RACHEL: Now, what if somebody has a disability which will require an accommodation during the interview? Are they -- is the individual required to let the employer know that ahead of time? >> SHARON: That -- yes. There is not something that says here is the specific time you need to request an accommodation for something in the interviewing and application process, but common sense would tell us as soon as you know that you'll need an accommodation, you should let the employer know. For one thing, excepting on what you need, there may be a time element that an employer is going to perhaps -- ordering a sign language interpreter, if it's getting materials put into an accessible format, depending on what the format is, an employ may not be able to do that with just a few hours notice or even a day's notice. And so as soon as one knows that I will need an accommodation, really that's when you want to let the employer know so that the employer has whatever advance notice he or she needs to get the accommodation. >> RACHEL: Okay. All right, I'm going to mush together two questions here. The first question is about if I'm not hired for a job that I know I'm qualified for, how can I prove discrimination? And kind of a piece of that is somebody else was also asking about is there case law that treats some of these tricky pre-employment issues? >> SHARON: In terms of how do you prove that there is discrimination, you probably can't. Certainly if you can't, then you probably could present a pretty good case to the EEOC and we appreciate everything that you can bring to us, but that's really EEOC's job. At most what you can do is, again, it kind of comes back to that sense you have that, you know, I really think I was the top candidate for this and I really don't get why I didn't get the job. Now, sometimes people have made certain comments to the applicant that kind of suggests disability. Like for example if they did end up asking illegal questions, that that may be a tip off not that we have potentially two violations. One is they offered illegal pre-offer questions, but the very fact that they were offering those questions might suggest the reason that a qualified person was not hired. So it's really about coming to EEOC with whatever you have that says I think it was discrimination. And then it's up to us to investigate and see. And I mean, what I will say is sometimes people are absolutely right, they are extremely well qualified candidates, and what we have found when we've gone to investigate is the person hired was even better. And that we don't find any evidence that there was disability discrimination. Sometimes it's just -- you know, it may feel that way. It may feel unfair, but if the person ultimately hired was more qualified, better qualified and it may be only slightly better qualified, that may have been a legitimate reason for the employers decision, but again, sometimes that really doesn't come out until EEOC does an investigation. So, you know, if you have a sense it's discrimination, as opposed to you know, we have all applied for jobs and lost them and been disappointed about it, but if there is something this time that makes you feel that this might be discrimination, whatever it is, that's what you take to EEOC. Now, of course I've forgotten the second question. >> RACHEL: Case law. >> SHARON: Oh, about case law. That's a hard one to answer because we're actually covering quite a lot of issues, and I am not somebody who sort of, you know, off the tip of my tongue reels off case law names. I will say that on the issues of pre-offer and post-offer, you know, things that an employer can't do pre-offer, things they can do post-offer, there really hasn't been all that much litigation. So you're not going to find all that much case law. There are a hand full of cases out there, but by and large, there really isn't that much. To the extent that we've had violations where employers have asked illegal questions or done an illegal medical exam, those cases tend to settle out pretty quickly, which is why you won't find a lot of case law. You know, sometimes all it takes is EEOC phoning up and suddenly the application is being thrown in the trash can and the appropriate application is done or now an employer is not doing medical exams pre-offer anymore. So nobody is going to court on those things. So, yes, there probably are a hand full of cases, but really not all that many, but we've gotten into other issues around reasonable accommodation and documentation for that. There is more case law on that, but you know, there is really no way I can answer what the cases are. >> RACHEL: Okay. And also just to let people know that on our website, the DLRP or the Disability Law Resource Project is a part of ILRU. And so on the DLRP portion of the website, which is www.dlrp.org, or if you're on the ILRU website, you can hit Americans with Disabilities Act and you'll get there. So on that portion of the website there is a section that's called case law and statutes. So along the left-hand side there, one of the buttons or one of the links is case law and statutes. And if you go into there, you can actually find the ADA broken up so that you will be able to look within employment, if you just want to look under disability questions, you can pull that section of the ADA up. You will see the statute. You'll see the relevant regulations, and then if there are significant case law or some analytical pieces about that topic, then you will find them all there. Of course my computer is frozen right now, so I can't go on and check and let you know what kinds of -- what cases might be there, but I do invite you to check out that part of the website. Okay, let's see, we have a couple of other questions. One of them is -- has to do with drug screening. This comes from somebody who takes medication for their disability. They know that -- you know, they've worked other places so I'm obviously paraphrasing here -- when they are going to have to take a drug screen when they apply for a new job, they know that they'll have to let the lab there know that the medications they are taking, they are taking legally. Will the employer or their manager end up knowing what medications they take? >> SHARON: Difficult question to answer. Ideally, no. Most drug screening programs, as we understand how they operate, don't tend to pass on that information, but that doesn't mean that some don't. Now, what should be happening here, drug screening is not considered a medical examination. It's not considered medical; therefore, an employer could do a drug screening during the pre-offer period. They could wait to the post-offer period, but they could also do it pre-offer. Now, for employers doing it pre-offer as this person asking the question points out, it's standard practice to ask what medications people are taking because what you don't want to have happen is mix up what they are really looking for, illegal drugs, with a lawfully prescribed medication. But of course if it's being done pre-offer -- a drug screening could be done pre-offer, but what about when you ask people, please tell us what prescription medications you're taking? We understand the reason you're asking that question. You don't want to mistake that lawful drug for an illegal one, we have a problem here, it's pre-offer. You are not supposed to ask people what prescription medications you are taking. So the rule here is that drug screening can be done pre-offer, but you do the drug screening. You don't ask any questions, just do the drug screening. If it comes back negative, then no problem and the person proceeds to the next stage of the application process. But suppose the drug screen comes back positive for something. Now, we don't know, is it illegal or is it a lawfully prescribed medication? If it is a positive drug screening that comes back -- and again it's pre-offer, it's at this point that EEOC has said that the drug screening company should ask can you explain to us why your result is positive? Rather than ask everybody about their prescription medication -- because for many people, they're not going to need to know this. It will never ever be a positive drug screening even though they are taking medication. So we really want to try to limit how many times people are being asked about their prescription medication. That you're supposed to wait until after the drug screen, and if the drug screen comes back positive, then to ask the question. But in any event, it's good for the drug screening company to keep that information confidential, but again, this kind of goes to we can't guarantee it and so actually an employer might lose the ability to say I never knew this. In other words, suppose someone is taking an antiseizure drug and they tell the drug screening company and something happens that suggests to them that they didn't get the job and maybe it's because the company might now know that they take an antiseizure medication. The company can tell us, well, hey, we never knew. The drug screening company never told us this, but the EEOC is going to go in and look at that. We're going to find out, well, why should we believe you? What can you point to? And sometimes we have found out that companies do find out. We will hold companies liable that, again, it's a risk the company runs and why some companies wait until the post-offer period to do some of these things is because, you know what, we may not be able to claim we never knew something. We're going to have a burden to show that the drug screening company never divulged this information to us and why should we have that added complication. So, again, some companies are choosing for that reason to wait until the post-offer period, but there is no guarantees here. It should be kept within the drug screening company, but that maybe something else you would have to look at. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. I'm going to collapse a couple of questions here and there seems to be some interest in what can happen to employers who are violating the law and what can employees or actually most of these questions have to do with applicants -- what can they get if the EEOC finds that an employer actually has violated the law? >> SHARON: Well, a lot depends on what you're referring to as the violation. I mean, the remedies are going to be different if the violation is you asked an illegal pre-offer question versus you illegally refused to hire a qualified individual with a disability. Which makes more sense, in a way there is a more serious violation where it was a qualified individual with a disability and for discriminatory reasons refused to hire them. It's not the situation of you hired a better qualified person. Point of fact, if we're finding discrimination, we're finding that you hired a less qualified person, and so there the remedies could be a lot more serious. It may include hiring the person now if there is still a job opening, or it may be at the next available opening you're going to give the job to the person. It may be involving money. It may involve back-pay. It may involve damages. In terms of asking an illegal question, I mean, there if that's the only violation, that doesn't necessarily get you the remedy of getting a job. Because there has to be a separate finding that there was discrimination in not hiring somebody. So you're not going to necessarily have the remedy of being offered job or, therefore, remedies involving back-pay. It's pretty hard to know that there may be anything other than trying to correct the illegal action. In other words, if you have an application form that asks these illegal questions they've got to obviously produce a new application form. If they've been doing medical examinations pre-offer, we've got to get that stopped. In terms of any kind of monetary damages, it really is going to depend on how egregious it is. You know, how flagrantly it has been done, how long it has been done? Obviously we're many years into the ADA and we can take that into account, but generally when we do see these situations, what we're trying to do is get a settlement. And as I said, most companies are not trying to fight these things, so really it's about what can we do to remedy the situation, resolve it, and it really is going to be individualized as to what additional remedies beyond stopping till legal action might be appropriate. >> RACHEL: Okay, great. I have two more questions and let me see if we can get them in. Okay, this one goes back to part of what you were presenting in the very beginning, and the question -- it's a little long -- but the question is, is it new that employers can ask people who have obvious disabilities will you need a reasonable accommodation? And if so, what accommodation? Why can they ask these questions instead of asking, can you perform the essential functions with or without a reasonable accommodation? Because it seems that the two questions you mentioned really give employers fodder for discrimination. >> SHARON: It's not new. If you look at the 1995 guidance EEOC put out on pre-employment. Pre-employment disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, as I said that's from 1995, we discuss it in from. So that's where you can see about this exception about employers being able to ask specifically about the need for reasonable accommodation to perform a specific job function where they know about the disability and it's reasonable to wonder that there may be a need for accommodation. The reason that this is different from asking the question, can you perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, goes to the fact that they are two different questions getting at two very different issues. When I ask a person can you perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodations, the person can truthfully and completely answer that question yes, I can perform it and never tell me anything about the accommodations. The focus of that question is on the ability to perform the essential function. And by saying with or without accommodation, it's kind of I'm interested either way. It's like I don't care which way you do it, my but bottom line as an employer is can you perform the essential function? Obviously there is a different questions being asked when you're focusing on reasonable accommodation. Now, if the questioner is concerned that by asking specifically about the need for accommodation, that that's giving information that the employer might use in a discriminatory way. And that's true, the employer might use it in a discriminatory way; but EEOC weighs that against the very likely situation that an employer who was not allowed to ask a question would sit there with his or her doubts and say I don't know if they need an a comb indication, it seems reasonable to me that they might and I don't know, and I don't even know if they can do the job. Without being able to ask it, it's just possible the answer is I can't do the job. No accommodation is possible. I'm missing a significant piece of information and so you know what, I just won't hire the person. And trying to prove discrimination under those circumstances is very difficult. Because of course what employer is going to confess to us, yes, I just decided I didn't want to take a risk here. EEOC weighed that against, yes, it's possible by asking about an accommodation the employer could use it to discriminate. Of course we make sure employers understand failing to hire someone because you know the person will need an accommodation is a violation of the ADA. That's not a legitimate reason to turn somebody away because you know they will need a reasonable accommodation, but it was to us more important than in many instances that by asking the question, the employer would hear either, no, I don't need any accommodation and here is why I can perform essential functions without them. Or they can hear, yes, you're right. I will need an accommodation and here it is. And here it is something that could be easily provided. It wasn't going to be a big deal, here how with the accommodation the person can do it. And here in this situation the employer is hearing is how well qualified the applicant is. So you're not leaving an employer with his doubts but rather you're answering those doubts. And so we felt on balance it was better for individuals with disabilities to allow employers to ask this question than to sit there, have their doubts, be able to kind of hide the true reason that they may never make a job offer to somebody. Let me also add though that once the question is put out there, the employer has put himself at risk because you can't take it back. It's now if you don't hire the person, of course the person can wonder is it because I told you about my need for accommodation? I mean, that that's also a check, if you will, on employers, that in asking the question you need to listen carefully to the answers, they need to respect the answers, that if the answer is, yes, this person can do the job -- now, again, you want to end up hiring a better qualified person, they are free to do that, but again if you've gone down that road, you've gotten answers that the person is qualified but will need accommodation, and you don't make that job offer, the employer better be able to articulate here is why. That now the employer could have a question they're going to have to answer. So I think that offers some protection to the applicant with a disability. >> RACHEL: Okay. I actually think that was really helpful to think about -- to think about is the issue from a lot of different angles. I mean, it is just a difficult situation, but I think that the reasoning that the EEOC used incoming to this is helpful for people to know. Okay, the last question I have is an individual in grad school who is doing an unpaid internship at a hospital protected under the ADA? And the little additional detail that I have is that the person is doing a full time internship and they need an accommodation. So the question is, is the hospital required to provide it? >> SHARON: I'm not sure that they are covered under the employment provisions of the ADA when you talk about an unpaid internship. There is a rather narrow category of volunteer workers who might be considered employees for ADA purposes or, you know, for any of the employment discrimination laws, but it's a fairly narrow category when people are unpaid. Basically when it's the only way you can ultimately get paid employment. First of all, you have to serve as a volunteer and only then will you be considered for a paid job in that same type of position, that happens a lot for example volunteer firefighters, you're not going to be a paid firefighter unless you first serve as a volunteer firefighter. I'm not sure that's what your questioner -- it's not that kind of situation for your questioner, so I'm not sure we're going to have coverage in terms of the ADA employment provisions. However, you might have coverage under either Title II or Title III of the ADA. I'm not sure if this internship is part of the graduate education program. If this is something that the grad student has to do as part of earning the degree and that the graduate school helps arrange these internships. If the graduate school is a state school, well, that's Title II of the ADA if it's a private school, that's Title III of the ADA and that might place obligations on the grad school if they have a roll in setting up these internships to make sure that there are appropriate accommodations for the students. Alternatively, the hospital may have some ADA obligations. Again, Title II if it's a state hospital, Title III if it's a private hospital. And the hospital offering the opportunity to the public to have these internships, there may be some requirements on the hospital to make accommodations to the interns because this is something a program open to the public to do, and so a person with a disability has to have equal access to it. So I don't think it's employment, but it may be picked up under either Title II or Title III of the ADA and that would be the justice department to get more information you could contact either through the website or through phone numbers and I'm sure, Rachel, your website can direct people how to contact -- >> RACHEL: Yes, we definitely can, and if you can't find it, send us an E-mail and we'll rely direct by back to you. Okay, we've reached the end of our questions and I think in the nick of time. Before I close out is there anything else, Sharon, that you'd like to add? >> SHARON: I don't think so. I think we've kind of covered an awful lot of information. That if people think of other questions after the session is over and send them to you, please feel free to contact me. We can still take questions after the program ends. >> RACHEL: Great. Thank you. And, yes, you have covered a lot of ground. So thank you very much. I think that people have learned a lot from today's webcast and if you'd like to share it with other people or if you'd like to revisit it yourself, it will be archived. So within a couple of days you'll be able to go back to the website and listen to our conversation as well as read a transcript from it. So I just also want to remind people to tune in to the next two webcasts that deal with employment provisions of the ADA. One is going to be the last Wednesday in June, the next the last Wednesday in July. So those dates are June 30th and July 28th. And Sharon, thank you so much for taking the time today to do this and in addition to Sharon, I'd like to acknowledge just a couple of other people. First I'd like to acknowledge NIDRR who funds your host for today's program, which again is the Disability Law Resource Project at ILRU. And several others who have also made today possible, here at ILRU, I'd like to thank Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, Dawn Heinsohn, Vinh Nguyen, Rob Dickehuth and of course our realtime captioner, Marie Bryant. So, again, thank you Sharon and thank you everybody for tuning in and we look forward to visiting with you again in the near future. Have a great afternoon everybody. Bye-bye.