U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and 

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 

Town Hall Listening Session on the ADAAA Proposed 

Regulations 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

11/20/09 

* * * 

 CHRISTINE GRIFFIN, Acting Vice Chair, EEOC; 

 CONSTANCE BARKER, Commissioner, U.S. EEOC; and 

 JOHN WODATCH, Chief of the Disability Rights Section of the Civil 

 Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

 

 CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: I guess we will begin. Good morning everyone. 

 PUBLIC AUDIENCE: Good morning. 

 CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: I feel like a teacher up here. All right, class. I want to 

welcome everyone. I am the Acting Vice Chair at the Commission. Before I ask the 

other folks to introduce themselves I want to thank Keith Hill for my arrival here in New 

Orleans and all the folks here, thanks to all of you for making this happen. Thank you. 

And I want to thank David from the Advocacy Center who turned us on to the TRAC 

Center. It's their relationship that is the reason we got to use this space. Thanks a lot. 

Thank you for the work you have done. When Naomi comes in, we will thank her for 

putting this together. Thanks to everyone. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: I'm the Commissioner at the EEOC, and it's my pleasure to be 

with you today. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: This is the fourth of our four Town Hall meetings. They have 

all been very informative. It has allowed us to get a different type of input and additional 

input and input from additional views -- very informative and very helpful. We are 

looking forward to listening to all of what you have to say to us today. Thank you. 

 JOHN WODATCH: Good morning. I'm John Wodatch, from the Civil Rights Division 

at the Department of Justice. I welcome you all. I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

Just so you know, we will follow in the footsteps of EEOC and put out our own rule on 

the ADA Amendments Act, and so your testimony today has a double purpose. It's 

helping to inform EEOC of your views on their approach. I am looking forward to 

hearing your testimony. 

 CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: I think the first person is Mitchell, is Mitchell here? He's not 

here. So, we can move to the next person, Daniel. Well, you know what, if they come 
later, we can fit them in. Some people signed up, some people walked in, that's fine too. 

So, the next person is Carol Tucker. 

 PUBLIC AUDIENCE: I didn't want to go first. 

 PUBLIC AUDIENCE: Okay. I will go. 

 CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Come on, Carol. 

 SPEAKER: Thank you for coming early. 

 CAROL TUCKER: All right. My name is Carol Tucker. I came here from 

Pensacola, Florida. I live there now. I decided to come here because I'm currently on 

Social Security disability as a direct result of the termination. I worked for the federal 

and state government and in 2002 after six and a half years of working for the University 

of Florida, a position that I had was eliminated and then I was in another position in 

another state. I had to move. It was supposed to be a comparable position; it was not. At 

the time I reported that to the EEOC, and nothing was done. I ended up having major 

surgery later that year and I miss my time and I was terminated for medical reasons. And 

then I went back to school. I was one semester away from getting my masters degree. I 

took out student loans, unemployment, food stamps. I paid for COBRA for 18 months. I 

got a master's degree, almost second master's degree. I wanted to be a college professor. 

I wasn't able to get a PhD. And I ended up, it was my intent to work to be a college 

teacher. Unbeknownst to me at the time I was never to be hired again. I was blocked. 

Every time I would approach a university or college about teaching I would meet the 

faculty, they would be very interested in me. Then the minute it would get to Human 

Resources, the door would slam in my face. The state of Florida and I began to suspect 

that something was going on, other than just maybe a former supervisor, you know, being 

nasty or whatever. But it was severe disability discrimination. I finally caught a college 

doing it, long story, but I ended up in 2002, I'm sorry 2006, I filed a discrimination 

complaint because I basically caught them red-handed. I was put on a schedule to teach 

for the college, then they found out that I used to work for a state agency, although it 

doesn't ask that question on the application. They called their attorneys, and their 

attorney told them not to hire me. I had done nothing wrong. Anyway, I have been 

representing myself for the last 3 years pro se. And as part of that, it's ruining my health. 

The stress of it, my immune system became totally compromised. I'm sick all of the 

time. Anyway, I ended up on total permanent disability. But here I am highly educated 

and all that is left for me to do is write a book and tell the world about it. That's not the 

way it should be played out. There's a lot of disability discrimination going on. It's going 

on largely because corporations and government agencies have risk managers. There are 

all kinds of general counsel, attorneys for the agencies or whatever. Often -- they are 

recommending a lot of databases out there that are not public knowledge that look at past 

insurance claims. If you ever file a lawsuit, you can find out anything that you want to 

find out about anybody. Now this is being used behind the scenes, discrimination -- not 

hiring people. There's always an excuse. I could use a wheelbarrow to haul all the 

applications that I have filed. I was not getting hired. It's also the fault of the health care 

crisis, now a lot of jobs are overseas. The insurance companies are pulling strings. Be 

that as it may, one of the problems is you need to know to stop this before it happens and 

not wait to see which discriminated citizens will stay the course and see a complaint 

through. Many people don't. And I'm trying to start an organization myself, and it's 

really difficult with my energy level not being what it used to be. We need legal reform. 
We need health care reform in this country. When it comes to civil matters and you can't 

afford an attorney, that's another set of problems. You have to do it yourself. Most 

people will not do that. So that's our basic constitutional right. You can't hire an 

attorney. Hey, this was supposed to be a free society. I can't live the American dream 

because I can't work. Okay. So, in Florida, I believe that I was properly advised of my 

rights. If you file a complaint before the Commission on Human Relations, you can't file 

a lawsuit in the federal court at the same time. In any case, an attorney told me that 99 

percent of the cases filed in the Florida Commission, they are really not complaints. I 

found out that was true. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: You said the Florida Commission? 

CAROL TUCKER: After that, the Commission was completely done away with. 99 

percent of the cases against plaintiffs, at the beginning they filed the complaint as a 

termination, so down the road, the Florida right to work state, you can get rid of anybody 

that is part-time for any reason. So, no, this is supposed to be a hire. I state my grounds, 

but all through every step of the way, it was a fight. I had a lot of my rights violated. It 

was the Division of Administration hearing. I started for the final hearing, it was a 

different judge. Nobody let me know in advance. The attorney for the college was 

extremely rude and nasty. It was a typical badgering attorney. The judge didn't say 

anything. That kind of thing went on all through the case. Now I have taken it as far as 

the U.S. Supreme Court. Anyway, they will not hear it, and now it's back to EEOC. So I 

have recently contacted the EEOC. I expect things to be done. One of the problems in 

higher education, and the Department of Justice and Department of Education, EEOC all 

need to work together with regard to opportunities for, you know, not just people that are 

blind or deaf, but a lot of that has to do with people that have illnesses, that's where the 

problems come in. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Have you looked at the new regulations? 

CAROL TUCKER: I have looked at them. The last position that I had, I wanted to 

work, and I was coming to work in the classroom, and I wanted to teach on-line. So the 

opportunities are not there in the colleges. I believe this is an initiative. I was told that 

the full-time faculty had first dibs on the on-line teaching. And one teacher, full-time 

teacher, got six courses in a summer term at about $1500 or so. Of course that's a nice 

chunk of change in the summer. In the meantime I was living in a motel trying to get 

body and soul together. I could not afford to live anywhere else. But at the time, in any 

case, it should not be that way. I believe that there should be some initiative where there 

should be more opportunities for teachers that can't work in the classroom. I could have 

taught on-line at home. And I don't see why there should be time limits for filing 

discrimination charges for a period of less than 10 or 20 years. I look at employment 

discrimination, and in a free state it ought to be considered a very important matter. If 

you can't work, you cannot pursue the American dream, okay. There needs to be an 

initiative where this is stopped before it's started. We know the management issue is 

going on, that it needs to be looked at. There needs to be accountability to what has 

already been done and stop it. It can't just be all about money. 
CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: If you were to submit this case today, could we help you in any 

way? 

CAROL TUCKER: It's hard to say. That's hard to say. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: What I would say is in major life activities -- in one of the 

things that was added by Congress -- it gets more focused on disease-related 

impairments. 

CAROL TUCKER: One of the things that happened in 2006 for example, is not being 

stopped. This is still going on. EEOC has already paid for it in ruling against perceived 

disability. I applied at the university. I was given a questionnaire asking me every 

surgery that I ever had. I still have it. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: You should turn that into the EEOC office as well. 

CAROL TUCKER: At the time, I was trying to apply for an adjunct position and an 

actual full-time position. They wanted me to do that. That's none of your business. I'm 

not going to fill that out and the door was slammed in my face, very nasty. I think that 

came down from the risk manager and the insurance company. We will not insure you 

again if the insurance company, we will not insure you, we are not going to hire people 

with certain risks. Well, you need to deal with that. That's illegal. That's why you need 

to go to the source of it when it results in this kind of abuse. Another one I had applied 

for was at Tallahassee. I applied for a position on-line with the university in Miami. I 

had a good rapport going on with the gentlemen. I had passed out flyers with my church. 

The pastor helped me to pass out flyers with the program. All of sudden I had no idea 

what had happened. The whole thing got stopped dead in its tracks. No valid reason, just 

a bunch of garbage. This happens over and over and over again. And this kind of 

thinking has to stop. People just can't work. It will just keep snowballing on until we do 

something about it. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: We are hoping that these new regulations will amend that on the 

coverage of people with disabilities, and the training and work that we do subsequent to 

what we do finalize will help educate people to all of that. But, I think what you 

encountered in discriminatory applications, our offices would want to know about that. 

CAROL TUCKER: I had that experience in Tampa and nothing was done. There's a lot 

of corruption in higher ed. It's a political thing. But there needs to be, just like raising a 

child if you don't give them some sanctions, you know, if you need to prosecute them, 

they need to be prosecuted. You don't prosecute them, they just keep -- you know, if you 

don't prosecute them, who is going to prosecute them? Okay. Well, I just contacted 

EEOC again about this case. Actually the e-mails have been going around and around. I 

ended up e-mailing Washington and I gave Tampa and I think Miami... 

CONSTANCE BARKER: You filed a charge? 
CAROL TUCKER: I did. They don't do anything as long as, now 3 years later, it's going 

to back to EEOC, and if I understand the process correctly, which is very confusing, now 

EEOC can take it to federal court. But I have yet to hear back from anyone that is 

supposed to be finding any file. That's kind of where it's at now. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: You need to work at where you filed originally. All of the 

things that you filed through the state of Florida, but if it's back --- 

CAROL TUCKER: The e-mail was from someone, the Washington office was sending 

to a P.O. Box — 

CONSTANCE BARKER: You can go back to the office. 

CAROL TUCKER: I have done that, anyway – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you for coming from Pensacola. 

CAROL TUCKER: Thank you. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: Sorry you have had all of the confusion. 

JOHN DUPLESSIS: This is John Duplessis. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: How are you? 

 

JOHN DUPLESSIS: I want to first thank the EEOC for allowing me the opportunity to 

speak here at this time in regards to the proposal you are making in adopting the 

American Disabilities Act Amendment and so forth. But for me, as a person with a 

disability, I'm here because I, myself being a person with a disability, have experienced 

discrimination in the workplace and have experienced the prejudices and the bias in the 

workplace because of having a disability. I have been terminated from a job, not because 

I was not able or capable of performing the job and so forth, but I was terminated because 

of my disability. It was determined that I was not able to perform the job. With that 

Amendment that is adopted by the ADA, it will allow individuals or persons with 

disabilities to be able to keep your jobs and maintain your jobs. That's because you are 

qualified and they are capable and able to perform the job duties of their job, the 

description of their job. You know, like me, I'm an individual who has a hidden 

disability. There are millions of Americans that have hidden disabilities. People look at 

me and say you don't look disabled. You are able to perform certain tasks so they don't 

consider you disabled. What happens is it creates bias and prejudices when you are 

accommodated in the workplace and other prejudice towards you because they feel that 

you're capable of doing a lot of things, but not realizing that our disabilities that we have, 

many hidden disabilities, we are disabled and we have difficulties in the workplace. I'm 

legally blind, you look at me, wait a minute, you don't walk with a cane or you don't have 

an escort. How are you considered legally blind? I have 20/300 vision. I have no 

peripheral vision. I'm legally blind. I have difficulty reading. I need assistive 
technology. I need things to assist me on the job. But still, I am discriminated against in 

the workplace. But with the adoption of this rule-making it will allow people like me and 

others to be able to say hey, you know what, I'm no longer -- I now have a piece of tool 

now -- I have a tool in my hand that I can use that says hey, you know what, time out, this 

has to change. I appreciate the fact that you have already adopted this new rule is my 

understanding, is that correct? 

CONSTANCE BARKER: No. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: It's not final. What you have read about it is how it's written 

today. These comments that we are getting from all over the country, written forms as 

well as the individuals that have spoken, will allow us to go back and make any changes 

that we think are necessary based on comments that people have made. 

JOHN DUPLESSIS: I was assuming that it was adopted. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: The actual statue is passed, but it's our regulations that are 

explaining that law that I'm finalizing. 

JOHN DUPLESSIS: It's very important that I came here. I won't be too long. But it's 

very important that persons with a disability, that we have some sort of tool, some sort of 

resource that will protect our jobs. Our jobs, we are not protected as many people believe 

we are. We are not protected. But with this adoption of the ADA Amendments Act, we 

will feel protected. Even those that have disabilities that are migrated or those disabilities 

that are in remission and come back, we feel protected now. Our disability, you know, 

we need to be seen as though, guess what, we should be treated fairly in the workplace. 

That's not the case in all occasions. We are discriminated against. We are discriminated 

against in political ways, sophisticated ways and many other ways in the workforce. This 

adoption of this rulemaking will allow us to have a tool to be able to support us and keep 

our employment. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: That's fine. Good words. The intent of this was to get more 

people with, you know, a variety of disabilities covered by the law that were unprotected. 

JOHN DUPLESSIS: I appreciate this opportunity you have given me to come up here 

and speak. I'm honored and just have a pleasure in being here. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you. Thank you for coming. You want to leave your 

written statement with us so we could have it for the record? 

JOHN DUPLESSIS: Yes, ma'am. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: We are running way ahead of time. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: All right. 
MICHELLE HAYES: I'm from Harrah's. I'm very thankful to you that you all are taking 

our comments. I'm wearing the hat of the employers. We want to do the right thing by 

our employees. However we struggle with the regulations in needing guidance in some 

of the expanded definitions. I'm a little nervous. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: This is very informal. 

MICHELLE HAYES: I will give you a good example. We have an employee that is 

severely asthmatic. However, our facility is very large and smoking is still allowed. So 

she has to be careful about choosing her routes where she comes in and out of the facility. 

But we can't be on guard 24/7. And she has reacted to cleaning chemicals so we have 

done our best to change the hours that we do cleaning, etc. It's just not realistic. 

Perfumes, any kind of cleaning chemicals, even construction at our facilities will set her 

off and pull her out on a stretcher. She wants to work. She does a great job when she is 

here. As an employer, we don't have the guidance on what is reasonable accommodation. 

The physicians are not -- it's not that they don't want to be cooperative, they just don't 

know how to be. What is reasonable accommodation, especially in this poor lady's case? 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: In that particular situation, yes. 

MICHELLE HAYES: But just on the employer's side. We struggle without having a lot 

of guidance. Until we get the physicians also understanding what it is that they can help 

employees with their employer to provide what is reasonable accommodation, they don't 

always understand our environment, our physical location. It does take a lot of time, the 

lady's coworkers feel penalized. If she will be at work or stay at work, if she has an 

episode, she will be out several weeks at a time. As an employer, how much do we need 

to give her because it's just, it's not reasonable for us to, she has a job, we need her to 

perform a function. I offer comments on the employer's side of case. We struggle 

because the guidance is very vague. With the new regulations, it expands to cover the 

majority of our employees at some point in their lives. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: There are some resources, some folks at the office here in New 

Orleans that would be helpful to help you figure this out. The Job Accommodation 

Network is a free service that you can call and really have someone who is an expert and 

brainstorm, if you will, really on how to accommodate employees with present situations. 

They have been around for years. How do you deal with someone that is allergic to all of 

these things at a casino? 

JOHN WODATCH: I would also like to add that I don't think that you can expect 

doctors to be the people to help you in this situation. They don't understand your work 

environment. They might be able to understand her condition if they are her personal 

physician, but if they are not that, they don't understand that, the interactions between this 

individual and the working environment. There are many different forms of 

accommodations and you will have to find what works for her and you as an employer. 

Part of this might be an accommodation being able to work at home part of the time, if 

the nature of her job allows that to be done at home. Because what you are really talking 
about are problems in the environment some of which will not be, are not going to 

change. So, you're going to need the Job Accommodation Network, that 1-800 number – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Over there on the table there's information. 

JOHN WODATCH: The web site -- you can pull it up. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Just put Job Accommodation Network; it will pop up. They 

will spend all the time you need. They will send you the material and help you figure it 

out. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: I want to applaud you for being aware of your obligation 

under the law and trying to take the steps that you need to take to make this 

accommodation. And with that said, we also have to recognize that there are some 

situations when we can't accommodate people. You do have an unusual situation. There 

are not a lot of places left where, thank goodness, where smoking is still around. That's 

the origin of our problem. Hopefully you will have this valuable employee, and you will 

be able to work out something. I think the work at home is a good thing, if that works 

out. 

MICHELLE HAYES: That's a great suggestion, but – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: All the money and everything – 

MICHELLE HAYES: With the auditing, etc. We really want to do the right thing by the 

employees, but at same time we have employees that feel they are penalized because of 

how we approach this situation. I appreciate your time. I just wanted to go on record 

from the employer’s side. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: It's not the intent of the ADA to put extra burden on the 

employers. Hopefully, you know, accommodations will work for everybody. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you. Thank you for coming. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: Hi. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: How are you? 

KATHERINE HOOVER: I was just brought up. Katherine Hoover. I have a few things 

more about more comments on – I can't hear -- it seems it would be helpful to pay 

attention to our Department of Labor because we are seeing a lot of discriminatory 

practices going on within that system which is not covered by ADA and state. You 

know, I can speak of what is happening locally, but I suspect we are not unique and 

people with disabilities are being shuffled off and being referred to rehab services instead 

of employment services, and individuals with a disability -- not having the 

accommodations -- so, we're having discrimination -- I can't hear her -- so, I'm not sure 
how that can be addressed but that seems a big issue in thinking about people with a 

disability. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Tell me what happens. Before they even apply for a job? 

KATHERINE HOOVER: Yeah, you come into the Department of Labor offices and if 

you have physical disability, oh, let me refer you to LRS. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: You come in and apply for a job? 

KATHERINE HOOVER: This is with your state Department of Labor. That's it. They 

are not getting far enough. 

CHRISTINE M. GRIFFIN: It's not the fact that you can work despite your disability, 

they try to send you off to somewhere else? 

KATHERINE HOOVER: Does it happen with every single person? No, but many. I get 

calls, some of the ones that are in the place where I work. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: You said the One Stop Center. One Stop Centers are funded by 

a variety of sources mostly out of Department of Labor. They’ve become sort of -- what 

used to be the old unemployment office is now more services and systems coordinated to 

be a part of the system rather than just unemployment. So they are now called One Stop 

Centers. You can go there and look for job. They should have the resources there to 

provide you with mechanisms to find jobs. And I heard this before. You're right it's not 

unique. A person with disability shows up. We can't help you, but Voc-Rehab, they 

push you out. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: In my role working in Jefferson Parish, I often refer people to 

the One Stop, don't just let them shuffle you off, tell them “I need a job.” So that's the 

issue. I find often, medical questions I see are being asked when somebody requests the 

reasonable accommodation. You put out some real good guidance for Title II codes on 

that. You know, that was, this is not a recent thing. It was a while back. But in saying if 

it's evident, you don't get tons and tons of medical information. Employers seem to have 

problems with the limits of what’s applicable. Individuals often feel that they have no 

rights. So I think, it's important to make sure that this is – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: More education and a need -- in this particular situation -- it's 

also, this law specifically said, you know, Congress said you shouldn't have to go through 

analysis and, it's an opportunity to raise that again. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: When you mentioned job accommodation, I think 

recommending that because in some guidance over time, you may find that very helpful. 

But also it would be helpful to reference the state DBTAC. You know, it's crazy. It may 

be technology that somebody needs because they don't understand and there could be 

assistance in funding that equipment. 
CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: The DBTAC. Each state has a DBTAC which is the technical 

assistance center. That also coordinates technical assistance issues for people with 

disabilities. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: In Louisiana, ours is called LATAN. L AT A N. We have 

offices in Baton Rouge and Shreveport. Funds were cut years and years ago. So the state 

kind of picked up some of it. But we are like everybody else. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: The disability technical center. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: Ours is in Houston. Then you mentioned in the record that the 

law-- now I refer people to EEOC and they do a good job. But if somebody is working 

and in a discriminatory situation, okay? They will lose that job more than likely before 

anything else happens. Or, the lack of knowledge of what they need to do and say and 

know prior to filing a complaint. People don't know. So they miss those little steps. So 

they have a complaint. That's real tight there. So over here, you don't know about it. So 

I don't know this, so, um, I will never be able to file a complaint. 

 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: There is an education piece around this. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: People knowing. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: How you advocate for yourself before you have to file. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: I'm pleased with what our parish is doing. We need to be 

upgraded and one of the things that I need to do is to educate the department that I work 

for. So I know that people don't know. They are fearful of when it's open. They don't 

know how to address that. But basically that's it. I have much concern about starting 

with the Department of Labor, One Stop Centers. We are seeing so much discrimination 

there. They are linked very closely with employers. So they are diverted from those, I 

don't know how that can be addressed. But -- these regulations --- 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Does anyone report that to the Department of Labor? 

KATHERINE HOOVER: I talked to our Board. I have written letters. I have contacted 

individuals. There are such small staffs. There's just one person around. There’s 

equipment there, but most of people at the site don't know how to use it, if it's there. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: I don't know, you don't know who at the Department of Labor. 

I know that we -- - the Secretary is very interested in disability-related issues. We will 

get you this information. 

KISHA THOMAS: I'm Kisha Thomas, Project Coordinator from the Louisiana 

Workforce Commission. 
CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: How much territory do you cover? 

 

KISHA THOMAS: The state. I used to, I worked in the region here in New Orleans in 

Jefferson Parish. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: This has been going on for years. 

KISHA THOMAS: It has. We have heard the complaints in the past. Individual 

officials have been informed of those. Those mistakes that were taken, and in the future 

if you, just let me know. ...[inaudible] 

KATHERINE HOOVER: I will get your card. But they have not been able to work. 

JOHN WODATCH: Thank you, Katherine. I just wanted to recognize Katherine who 

has worked with us in the Department of Justice from New Orleans. She has been 

incredibly helpful in making this area of people with disabilities be known. We thank 

you for the work you've done. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: If I might just say -- several members of the City Council are 

here, and I would like to recognize them. They do a great, energetic job for us. We are 

really appreciative. We are thrilled to have you in New Orleans as well. We have also 

seen the Department of Justice as our shepherd. We see you as our back-up. We are 

grateful for you. We don't see you as the enemy. 

JOHN WODATCH: We appreciate that. 

KATHERINE HOOVER: With that we thank you for treating us so kindly. Thank you 

for coming. We appreciate and value you working with the advocates and so many 

others. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: Who is here? Would you introduce them? 

KATHERINE HOOVER: Jeffery is here. And David is here. David Gallegos is the 

Chair of the Mayor's Advisory Council and I am the ADA Administrator. So we're all 

here. We are thrilled that you are here. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you for all your work. 

PUBLIC AUDIENCE: [inaudible] 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: I like that. It's great. 

WALLACE BONAPARTE: Can everybody hear me? Good morning. My name is 

Wallace Bonaparte. I am the Director of Equal Employment Opportunity and 

Affirmative Compliance at the Medical University of South Carolina. 
CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: You came a long way. Where in South Carolina are you 

located? 

WALLACE BONAPARTE: We are in Charleston. Any time I get an opportunity to 

speak to anyone on the Commission or anyone from the Department of Justice, I do it. 

But today I wanted to come in because we really had a couple of specific questions and 

concerns. We have been caught in the middle and it's cost us some money. Our biggest 

concern is the question of how are the Amendments going to really address preemployment physicals. One of the things that a part of our policy says is that employees, 

at least the applicants must have a pre-employment physical. During that physical, we 

find that sometimes restrictions either on lifting or latex allergies, especially in hospital 

settings, are imposed on an applicant. That applicant goes to the department, goes to be 

interviewed. The department manager says I can't use you in this department. That 

applicant does not have the same rights an employee does. They can’t do the same 

functions as them, they are not hired. That means they file a charge. Okay? What we 

have been faced with a couple of times in the last year, we have been accused of 

perceiving that this person was disabled. Therefore, having made that perception, we 

have discriminated against someone who is covered by the ADA. These cases that I'm 

thinking of were under the ADA prior to the Amendments. Now that we have the 

Amendments Act, it's a much broader definition of disability. Can you give me some 

idea how those activities that we engage in will be affected by the law? 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: I have to tell you it's the analysis that you go through when you 

offer a position and they have taken the physical and you find out whatever you find out, 

the analysis for you, can they do the functions with or without an accommodation. If you 

do that and you have every reason to believe that they can't and there is no way you can 

accommodate them, you make that decision and you document that, nothing prevents that 

person from filing that charge. Um, and you represent what your position is. That's how 

it all plays out. I don't see that these, the Amendments Act or anything else will change 

any of that. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: We are a little bit hampered in what we can do. We are here 

for a limited purpose of receiving public input and complaints concerning the regulations 

that we have drafted. Because this is not a formal meeting, we have been advised by our 

counsel that we can't answer questions on the regulations. We are strictly here for input. 

So, we can engage in a dialogue that does not involve, you know, increases knowledge to 

us about the regulations, but I think you know, probably the best thing we can do – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Keith, can you assist him in putting him in touch with your 

office, that can give him some, you know, I know what you want is some down to earth, 

in my situation, what can I do? We are trying to comply with the law, but, we need to 

know what we are doing wrong. Keith is the Director of the New Orleans office. That is 

different from your office, but he has the expertise. You have come all of this way, we 

want to help you with what we can. Anyone else who is here? Well Keith, Jeanne, and 

she is from our Office of Legal Counsel. And Jeanne is an attorney. She can certainly 

help you walk through your initial analysis determining whether or not you have gone 
through the thought process before you say no to an applicant. I think that is where 

employers mess up is that they would like comply to the law, but don't understand the 

process they need to go through. They just make a decision, sometimes they make that 

decision thinking that they are protecting that applicant when they are not. So, I think 

Jeanne and Keith may be able to help you out on that. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Any other concerns that you have? 

WALLACE BONAPARTE: No. That was the one. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Are those cases pending right now with us? 

WALLACE BONAPARTE: No, we have settled them. Therefore it has cost us some 

money. Whereas, I don’t think there was fault on our side. Particularly when these kinds 

of cases get to the Department, the supervisors are so protective of their own positions; 

they are looking for the best person. They are liable to say, hey, I don't want to talk to 

you. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Yeah, they say something that’s putting the University in a bad 

position. 

WALLACE BONAPARTE: Yeah. So we have made some changes in our policies to 

make sure that HR is getting involved before anyone is terminated, not terminated but, 

their offer of employment is rescinded and things like that. But, it's really bothersome to 

have individuals come back, well, you didn’t offer me another job at the University. You 

know, we don't think we have to do that if you are an applicant. You applied for a 

specific job. You don't meet the requirements for that so we are rescinding the offer. But 

the accusation is that you thought we were disabled. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: Jeanne, would you spend some time with that? 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you for coming all this way. 

[Epilepsy Foundation speaker]: I'm Dorothy. I hope that this gentleman has a good time 

in New Orleans while he is here. His city of Charleston is lovely. Perhaps we can meet 

over there next time. I just have a few comments that I want to make in regards to 

EEOC's efforts. I want to thank the EEOC for the development of the regulations. I 

represent the Epilepsy Foundation. Protections offered to people with disabilities are 

crucial for our population, for the people with epilepsy. There have been a lot of 

problems with people in particular that you hear about. This effort is one that corrects 

problems of the past. In that light, the Epilepsy Foundation will benefit just by 

application of those. That's what we hope for. It's not just for our people but anybody 

with disabilities. One of the comments we want to get on the record, I'm sure you have 

heard this in other cities, is that epilepsy and seizures do substantially limit major bodily 

functions. Period. That's in the neurological area. We feel that should be clearly spelled 

out. There are multiple seizure syndromes. It's not important to know which type it is. 
All epilepsy affects neurological functions. Period. The process being streamlined is 

necessary to assure the protection of that individual. We are sensitive to that person. 

People should only have to provide documentation of a disability or condition to be 

covered under the provisions of this law. In addition, it eliminates unnecessary analysis 

to the degrees of disability, which is going to help our group of people, we hope all 

people with disabilities. That's something that people have had to deal with. We are glad 

to see some efforts in that direction to eliminate some of that. We feel that you could 

correct “temporary and minor.” For example, there is no such thing as a small seizure; 

they just don't exist. What happens to people, for example, people with a broken leg, 

broken femur, it's temporary but not a small event. We’d like some consideration of that. 

The regulation needs to make it clear that a broken bone may be temporary, but it's not 

minor. That's how we feel about seizures. The true test of all of this is just getting the 

people on the jobs and getting them to stay on the job. So, for us, can the person do the 

job, and is that undue hardship. Can the people do the job? Then they should be hired. 

That should be happening. It's not always happening in our area. I'm sure you hear it all 

over the nation that it's not happening. No one should ever need to show what's in the 

employer’s mind regarding the disability. They should be able to bring claims on the 

employer’s actions. For example, if they are personally affected or treated, that is fired, 

after the employer learns that they have epilepsy or cancer. They have been regarded as 

having a disability in that process. And again, on behalf of the Epilepsy Foundation of 

Louisiana and Epilepsy of America, more than 3 million people with epilepsy throughout 

this country, we want to thank you all and express the efforts here that this will open the 

doors. 

 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you. Phil, from Chicago, told us the story about his son 

with epilepsy who is an engineer. He had a seizure during his interview for the job. 

They hired him anyway. Wasn't that great? Usually you hear the other stories. 

[Epilepsy Foundation speaker]: We have a lot of them. Fortunately my husband is a 

Human Resources Director. It's very interesting because he has a master’s degree as a 

social worker, as I am. So we have been tuned in on both sides of this. But he's very, 

you know, in tune with the processes and being aware of how not to step into that arena 

and discriminate. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: I applaud the work of the Foundation. I had a legal secretary 

for years who had epilepsy. You know, it was just something, this was in the early years 

of the ADA. And you know, we just, we learned how to work with her. She did have 

seizures at work. She was a fantastic secretary. 

[Epilepsy Foundation speaker]: One of the struggles with epilepsy is it could be 

intermittent. The degree of medicine that you need to control the condition sometimes 

could be prohibiting with work productivity. There's this fine balance of having enough 

medicine to balance the disorder versus not having enough medicine or not being 

responsive to the meds which about 30 percent of the people are not. Not having seizures 

that are not managed. So those folks have a very challenging time not only getting 
employment, but a challenging time in life in general. They have challenging time in 

getting Social Security also. That's just been a common theme for our people. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you. Thank you for coming. We appreciate it. 

PUBLIC AUDIENCE: We are waiting for a phone call. It should be coming in. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Anyone cold in here? It's a little chilly. All of women are 

saying yes, it's freezing in here. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: We will get back together. There's a lot of networking going on 

here which is great. The next person on the agenda is Susan Meyers from the Advocacy 

Center. 

SUSAN MEYERS: Thank you. My name is Susan Meyers. I'm an attorney with the 

Advocacy Center. It's an agency here in Louisiana. And I'm here today to offer some 

oral comments that were submitted and written comments. But I did want to come out 

and first of all thank you for putting on these town hall meetings which is a wonderful 

opportunity for people to come and offer comments and to give the Advocacy Center’s 

strong support for the regulations, the regulatory changes, the ADA Amendments Act and 

the legislative history attached to that Act. We think they will go a long way toward 

fulfilling the aims of the ADA and the Amendments Act. We are particularly pleased 

with the sentiment expressed in the regulatory language, and the focus in an ADA and 

EEOC inquiry should be on whether or not discrimination occurred rather than whether 

or not the individual is a person with a disability, which we think will go a long way to 

help individuals with disabilities in the workplace. We also are supportive of the list of 

impairments that will meet disability. The only change that we might suggest or 

qualification to our support is that we think it might help to have some clarifications put 

into the regulations or into the interpretive guidance as to what the difference is between 

an impairment that will consistently meet disability as opposed to those in the second part 

of that regulation or section 6 of that regulation, those impairments that are disabling for 

some and not for others. Some additional guidance is needed on how those two 

categories should be treated by employers and how they should be interpreted, whether or 

not for example in impairments that will consistently meet disability there should be a 

legal presumption for the people who have impairments in that list. We think whatever 

you can say would assist employers in that process to establish coverage. And I will just 

wrap up by thanking the EEOC for the opportunity to come and to meet in person and in 

writing and for also the EEOC's hard work in these regulations and these town halls 

across the country. Thank you very much. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you, Susan. Is there anything else? We don't have 

anyone else that actually wants to testify. 

ED HAROLD: I will come up and talk. My name is Ed Harold. I will talk a minute on 

behalf small businesses. I'm not representing any client. I'm working routinely under the 

American Disabilities Act. And I have only had a brief chance to peruse the regulations 
and they appear consistent with what the Act was. I will point out that most employers 

are dealing with these issues even though somebody was not covered under the 

Disabilities Act, but of course that was never considered in terms of you have given 

somebody an accommodation. Because if you did that step and you were wrong and 

were told that you were wrong later, you have no defense. Most employers do work with 

and try to look at people that might have some concern about how they could do their 

jobs. Is there something we can do for them? I don't think it gets to that level in 95 

percent of the cases that they are delving down into the disability, what the medical 

information says about this person doing this job. That's not the analysis that I'm seeing. 

But I think the particular problem that we see in the new Act, where it's really going to 

create some pitfalls, is in the definition. And the reason for that is how we go about 

handling these issues, what are we doing with them on a day-to-day basis. We need to 

know that somebody is going to do a good job and do a good job safely. We need to 

know the medical information. There's nothing in the guidance that says when an 

employer goes out and gets current medical information about an employee’s capacity. 

Whether it's a limping limitation or a back injury or driving limitation with epilepsy, 

you're not regarding somebody that is disabled. I think that's missing. We have to use 

something to assess whether the person can or cannot do his or her job. I have other 

people at the work site and people on the road that are not safe on the road that are not 

safe to drive and could kill somebody. I'm in big trouble. I need to know they are not 

going to hurt somebody else and they will not hurt themselves. We have to make this 

determination. What I hear from some are common sense questions. Employers are 

asking for medical information. Why are they making these decisions? They have a lot 

of different considerations, not just the ADA to take into account. There are other times 

when we go about things, there are different ways to go about these things. We should 

not be looking for doctors necessarily, not looking for doctors to advise us necessarily on 

these things. It's true the employees' doctors don't know the workplace, but they should 

know the employee and what they can and cannot do. That's the information that we 

need. That is an incredibly important part of the process. While I love my doctors, they 

are not always the most helpful part of the process. I could give you a whole host of 

things they don't like about the paperwork. So we are going to those doctors to get the 

information about the employee. We need to know what they can do and cannot do. We 

need to see if they can work. They need a determination. Some companies have more 

physically demanding jobs and often do pre-employment physicals. They look for 

something. They have their own doctors to do it. What I'm hearing in the way that the 

regulation is written, but the absence of consideration for this, that these attempts by 

employers will regard them as disabled persons. What that gets down to is this 

theoretical. I get a note from the employee’s doctor. He is perfectly fine. He is released 

to return to work. He has no limitations. My own doctor says he has plantar in the foot. 

You are putting him in the job that he stands on his feet 8 hours a day. If you do that, he 

will hurt himself worse. You do that, and he will fill out worker's comp. One doctor says 

he's fine. My doctor says we have disability insurance for the employees. You can rely 

on your doctor. Go back to the disability, but, other times, they don't have that. They 

have not taken it for whatever reason. You are faced with competing doctors. There is 

no provision in the ADA and no provisions in the regulation. Who wins? Which doctor 
is -- you get the third opinion. There is nothing in the ADA to address that. In advising 

my client, I'm sitting there, I'm going to tell them to go with their own doctor. Their 

doctor has worked with them. He understands how the job is done. The employers' 

doctor was not fully informed about that. I'm also going to tell them to call back the 

employee's doctor to explain the job to them. But at the end of the day it will come down 

to, do I listen to my doctor or the employee’s doctor, listen to your own doctor. You're 

the one that is on the hook for the liability that the employee is hurting himself, breaks 

some bones, whatever happens. If he injuries himself further, you have worker's comp 

for consideration. That's a very difficult place we are going into right now. I think it will 

come up more and more. We are expanding the disabled, but I’m concerned greatly 

expanded disabled definition. It used to be you could make a mistake in your assessment 

of somebody's capacity. You make any mistake under those regulations about 

somebody's actual physical disabilities and you are regarding them as disabled. That's an 

increase in potential for liability. And I think that what the regulation is missing for what 

I think perhaps could be in there is more guidance on the use of medical information, on 

the gathering of medical information. I don't think you, as a Commission, say who wins 

and who loses. It's not the law, but certainly something can be said that when an 

employer relies on current medical information related to employers then they are not 

regarding that the employee is disabled. They are looking factually at his physical 

condition. I say, I don't think you can do this, that's regarding somebody as disabled. 

That's where the law is supposed to go – to prevent assumptions about people. Where it’s 

facial -- there's the assumptions that are stamped out. But we have to make a decision for 

safety concerns to figure out how it is that I will get this person to do this job. I have to 

rely on medical evidence. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: Let me suggest, first of all, as I think the flip side of this, even 

though the definition you know becomes the standard, the flip side is there is no 

reasonable accommodation with that. A lot of the cases that you are concerned about 

have dealt with liability because you have failed to accommodate somebody that you 

have regarded as disabled, and I think that is cleared up now. And second, if you rely on 

testimony for the medical and a regarded as claim what you do have, if you do rely on 

medical testimony, that's a defense in regard to this. 

ED HAROLD: But you don't necessarily win. I understand what you're saying. I'm glad 

they cleared up the accommodation issue. I think it's a failure to hire issue. I'm not going 

to hire you because I believe these limitations prevent you from performing the job 

safely. His doctor says he does not have any limitations. So, you refuse, you have no 

basis to refuse to hire him. Yes, I do, I have a doctor over here. But at the end of the 

day, I am faced with -- there's always the potential that I can lose in court. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: There always was. 

ED HAROLD: But the thing is in the past, it was much easier to defend a regarded as 

disabled claim. Well, all we thought about was X, was a very small thing, it was only in 

particular to this job. That's gone. 
CONSTANCE BARKER: They didn’t meet the definition. 

ED HAROLD: What you felt about that person or incorrectly assumed about that person 

would not rise to the disability. In my perception – 

CONSTANCE BARKER: You're talking about the statue. That's in the statue. The 

broadened definition for regarded as is in the statue. 

ED HAROLD: What I'm saying is that with the regarded as disabled, there should be 

something for employers in the regulations, that it's okay to follow medical information. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: You don't only rely on medical information, you take that 

medical information, and you then say, can this be accommodated? Can we request this 

person do the job with or without an accommodation? You look at that analysis. You 

make a decision. You make the best decision you can. That has not changed. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: I understand your frustration, but I think that Chris is right, 

regardless of the broadened definition that Congress gave us, the analysis has always 

been there. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: You do the best job you can documenting why you think this 

person cannot do this job if that's what your assessment is. 

ED HAROLD: It's a tension between -- but there's a second thing, I understand – 

CONSTANCE BARKER: There are tensions in the statute, but that's always – 

ED HAROLD: The second thing I want to talk about and I don't see it in the regulations, 

but it comes up constantly. It will come up more now with the expansion of the 

definition of disability, that is the attendance question. Whether or not and to what extent 

attendance policies and leaves of absences are reasonable accommodations. I think we 

saw an example of it today with an earlier speaker. When somebody cannot come and do 

the job, they are not there on a regular basis. They have exhausted their leave, at what 

point can you say, we're sorry, we have work to get done, you're not capable of coming to 

work enough to do it. That's going to come up, because in some cases, that's where the 

disability is not necessarily related to the capacity to actually be able to perform the job 

when you're there. But it's the disability internal, the Crohn's disease, the one that is 

pretty much intestinal circumstances where people have to stay at home a lot that will 

crop up. I didn't see much in the revisions to regulations addressing attendance as a 

reasonable accommodation. The case law – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Again, that has not changed either. Nothing about reasonable 

accommodations have changed. There never will be a bright line about the attendance 

and flexibilities. That's based on employers’ capacity to actually deal with that. What is 

an undue burden. There's no way to actually, as an agency, say this is the bright line on 

that. There just isn't. 
ED HAROLD: I understand that. I understand reasonable accommodations have not 

changed but what are we doing for the 63 million people when they passed the Act. 63 

million people have – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Whatever the number is, when you're expanding, that definition, 

what you're doing is you're again taking all of those other concepts that we have worked 

with for years. You will take these concepts and work with them in a lot more situations. 

Somebody breaks their leg for 10 months; now it's a disability even though it's 

completely healed 100 percent. That's a new thing to deal with. It used to be healed 100 

percent, 4 months, 10 months, it was a temporary condition. That was pretty well settled. 

That's not settled now. I think there is room hereof to look at how this expanded 

definition may play on some other aspects of regulations that may be looked at in light of 

the greater scope of the ADA. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: I appreciate your comments. I think this is a lot of what we're 

going to be facing with the ADA regulations. I think we will be needing to develop 

guidances for filling in between the cracks. I'm looking at Jeanne because she is the one 

that will be drafting. In real life situations we don't want to have an Act or regulations 

that the average small business person can't understand. And it's hard to write regulations 

that cover all of the legal bases that the average person can understand. Well, I think it's 

going to be real important with guidances to fill in and helping employers and employees 

to understand all of the little stuff that may not be covered. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: There is something for small businesses, is that right? 

ED HAROLD: Yes. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: That's already on the screen and in the works. 

JOHN WODATCH: And I say if you're going to provide written comments to the 

Department, what's very helpful to us is hearing examples from your experience without 

identifying the company, the employer or whatever, there are issues that should be 

addressed on the Crohn's disease issue, and intestinal disease as they affect not only 

attendance, but job restructuring and additional hours. The more we hear about 

individual circumstances, the more helpful it is. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: We have done a lot of disability guidance for that specific 

reason. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: But you are absolutely right that most employers want to 

understand their basic obligations and with the Amendments Act they have to rethink and 

expand how they think about disability to be more open to other things that were not 

regularly identifiable as disabilities in the past. So that's going to present some new 

challenges. 
ED HAROLD: All right. Thank you. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Is there anybody else? 

MACK MARSH: I'm Mack Marsh. I'm the Director of Medicaid Infrastructure Grants. 

A lot of things that I hear about in my work are some of the same issues that I have heard 

here today. It all revolves around education, and letting them know what is available to 

them. Louisiana is developing technical centers throughout the state to offer not just 

training and information to people with disabilities but also to employers, to give 

employers an opportunity to ask their questions to hire people with a disability. I would 

encourage the EEOC to maybe aid Louisiana and other states in supporting these types of 

education centers so that employers are not afraid of the ADA. As a former employer for 

13 years in a small business I was scared to death if somebody said ADA. So I hid it. 

And I think a lot of small businesses do that. They shrink back. They look at ways to 

hire people without advertising for people and that sort of thing. They have to take that 

fear out of them. The ADA is a regulatory law. It's an opportunity for us to get people to 

do things that they should be doing, but it also should be an opportunity to provide 

guidance to the people to give them information to make their businesses reflective of 

their communities. So I would encourage the EEOC to be involved with the other entities 

that are out there doing this type of educational outreach. I think it would help the 

businesses in the long run and the communities in the long run. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Where are the grants in this funding? 

MACK MARSH: We are almost done. We will be done 2011. But the things we are 

building are sustainable. That's what we are looking at. Our technical centers will be 

funding and – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Medicaid and infrastructure grants are focused on a couple of 

things. In different states millions and millions and millions of dollars. Some focus on 

more community living which leads to other things that in the community – 

MACK MARSH: They are developed as infra-structure for employment. They 

originally were built around to provide health care for disabilities and Medicaid buy-ins 

very early on. Since then, all of them have moved toward really employment-related 

infrastructure. There are 43 states that have these. All of them are in the final stages, but 

this is really a good time for the EEOC to look at some of those educational 

opportunities, some of the opportunities to let people know that here's where you can go 

for information. Almost all of the states have this assistance. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: You bring up a very good point about, what I wish we had 

is— 
MACK MARSH: Let me clarify it, it's not that they are afraid of hiring a person with a 

disability. I don't care. I just want to know if I'm getting the right person for the job. I 

hire people with disabilities. I was not afraid of hiring an individual with a disability. I 

was afraid of you guys. I was afraid of the ADA. 

CONSTANCE BARKER: What I wish we had was sort of an Ombudsman, a concept 

where the employer could, a smaller employer could afford, can go there and say this is 

the situation that we have, just tell me if I need to accommodate this person or not. If the 

EEOC tells them how to, so they get help without having to go to the lawyer who may 

not know and give them bad advice. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: We can do that, and do it to some extent. Also the organization 

that we mentioned before JAN -- nobody is saying that violates the law or not. 

Somebody in JAN is brainstorming how to actually accommodate somebody. We will 

ask. 

MACK MARSH: We will ask JAN to have a presence. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: They do -- for your attendance issue -- they do work with 

people on trying to figure those types of things out. They are more difficult than can you 

build a ramp or not. Is there a best practice or is anything going to come out from 

[inaudible].... 

MATT MARSH: We have, there will be a second – DOJ is looking at this and we’re 

doing some joint things together. We think there is second [inaudible]... A lot of it is 

waiting for next year’s reauthorization. We don't think so, but we think there's a second – 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thanks. Thanks a lot.... [inaudible] Would you state your 

name and who you represent? 

VANESSA KINNEY: I'm representing everyone that matters to me and an organization 

located in Dallas, Texas. I’m on the phone speaking with ...[inaudible].... I look forward 

to working with you and I would like for you to know that as the President of America 

said, we need change. I understand the EEOC, the ADA and DOJ, and our policy and 

procedures. Some of them must be changed. In the words of our president Obama, all 

Americans, all people, need to obtain equal employment all over the world. I thank you 

for giving me this moment to speak and looking forward to meeting each one of you 

personally. 

CHRISTINE GRIFFIN: Thank you. Anyone else that wants to talk about the - nope, all 

right. I guess we will take a little bit of a break. Wait around just a little bit and see if 

anyone else shows up. We will probably adjourn for the day. Then I want to thank 

everyone for coming and we have heard some very interesting things here. It will help us 

to write regulations. We look forward to dialoguing with you in the future about how we 

go forward. We are right at the beginning phase of writing the policy and going around 
with these regulations. And we look forward to working with you all in the future. 

Thank you. 

 PUBLIC AUDIENCE: Applause --