Source: https://www.ada.gov/entities_commonwealth_va_sa.html
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 06:10:41
Document Index: 506508087

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 12131', 'art 35', '§ 12132', '§ 12131', 'art 35', '§ 35', '§ 12102', '§ 35', '§ 19', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 12102', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 35', '§ 19', '§ 35', '§ 12131']

Settlement Agreement between the United States and Entities of the Commonwealth of Virginia
AND ENTITIES OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
The parties (“Parties”) to this Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (“Agreement”) are the United States of America (“United States”) and the Office of the Magistrate for the Sixteenth Judicial District of Virginia, former Orange County Circuit Court Chief Judge Daniel R. Bouton, and the Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (“VDDHH”) (collectively referred to herein as the “Commonwealth Entities”), and the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia (“ESSCV”).
This matter was initiated by a complaint filed with the United States against the Orange County Circuit Court and the magistrate at the Central Virginia Regional Jail (“CVRJ”) alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and seeking to recover compensatory damages for an aggrieved person that was subject to the alleged discrimination on the basis of disability as a result of the ADA violations. Specifically, Complainant V.S. (the “Complainant”), who is deaf and uses American Sign Language (“ASL”) to communicate, alleged that both the CVRJ magistrate and the Orange County Circuit Court failed to provide a qualified interpreter or other appropriate auxiliary aids or services so that she could communicate with the CVRJ magistrate and the Orange County Circuit Court. The Complainant stated that she was incarcerated without bond in the CVRJ for thirty (30) days as a result of the alleged failures.
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in the “services, programs, or activities of a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia (“USAO”) states that it: (i) is authorized under 42 U.S.C. § 12131-34 and 28 C.F.R. Part 35, Subpart F, to investigate the allegations of the complaint in this matter to determine the Commonwealth Entities’ compliance with Title II of the ADA; (ii) has the authority to, where appropriate, attempt informal resolution, such as through the terms of this Agreement; and (iii) that if resolution is not achieved, it has the authority to issue a Letter of Findings, and thereafter to negotiate a voluntary compliance agreement, and to bring a civil action enforcing Title II of the ADA should it fail to secure compliance by voluntary means. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.172, 35.173.
The Complainant is deaf and as such is an individual with a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. 42 U.S. C. § 12102; 28 C.F.R. § 35.108.
The Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV have fully cooperated with the United States in this matter. The Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV responded timely to each and every request made by the United States, including a meeting with representatives of the United States.
The Parties have determined that the complaint filed with the United States can be resolved without litigation and have agreed to the terms and conditions provided in this Agreement.
The Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV expressly disclaim any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever with respect to the complaint submitted on the Complainant’s behalf to the United States, and the events described below. The Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV state that the USAO lacks standing to bring a civil action enforcing Title II of the ADA and further state that any enforcement action is barred by the statute of limitations. The Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV are entering into this Agreement to avoid the risk and expense of litigation and to facilitate their ongoing efforts to improve the delivery of services in Virginia’s judicial system for those who are deaf and hard of hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the promises and covenants contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged:
On September 30, 2015, the Complainant, who is deaf and communicates using ASL, was arrested and taken into custody in Orange County, Virginia by the Virginia State Police (“VSP”) on a capias issued by a circuit court judge. VSP records indicate that the responsible VSP law enforcement officers were aware that Complainant was deaf and, prior to the arrest, these officers notified and sought assistance from the Orange County Circuit Court Clerk to facilitate effective communication with the Complainant. The VSP claims its officers were told by the circuit court clerk that no interpreters or other services were available.
The duties and authorities of magistrates in the Commonwealth of Virginia are set forth by the Code of Virginia in Chapter 3 of Title 19.2, Criminal Procedure. Virginia law mandates that a person shall be admitted to bail unless there is probable cause to believe the person will not appear for trial or hearing, or the person’s liberty constitutes an unreasonable danger to that person or the public. Va. Code § 19.2-120. Virginia law establishes that failure of the magistrate to conduct a meaningful bail hearing does not satisfy minimal Due Process Clause requirements. See McDonald v. Dunning, 760 F. Supp. 1156, 1164 (E.D. Va. 1991). Communication with a defendant is necessary so that a magistrate can assess the relevant factors in determining bail.
On September 30, 2015, the Complainant was taken by the VSP to the Central Virginia Regional Jail, located in Orange County, Virginia, where she appeared at a bail hearing before a magistrate. No sign language or other interpreter was in attendance at the bail hearing. The magistrate ordered the Complainant to be held without bail in the Central Virginia Regional Jail. The magistrate noted in a blank space on the bail checklist form that: “accused is deaf.” This note appears next to the heading on the form stating “Other information considered.”
Though an interpreter was not present for the Complainant’s bail hearing, the magistrate avers that he was able to communicate with the Complainant through writings and through relay communications with the Complainant’s parents who appeared before the magistrate at the same time as Complainant for their own bail hearings. The United States contends these communications were limited and Complainant was not able to sufficiently communicate with the magistrate.
On October 5, 2015, the Complainant was brought before the Orange County Circuit Court for her initial appearance. The Circuit Court Judge requested that the Clerk take steps to obtain a qualified interpreter. As a result, the Circuit Court Judge postponed the Complainant’s initial appearance and ordered her continued detention until that time.
On October 5, 2015, the Clerk of the Orange County Circuit Court submitted a request to the VDDHH to provide interpreter services for the Complainant at a hearing scheduled to take place on October 30, 2015.
Subsequently, the Clerk submitted a revised request to the VDDHH to provide interpreter services for the Complainant at a hearing scheduled to take place on October 22, 2015.
On October 22, 2015, the Circuit Court Judge conducted a proceeding with the Complainant with the assistance of an ASL interpreter. At this proceeding, the Complainant asked about a bond. The Circuit Judge responded to Complaint’s request by asking the Commonwealth’s Attorney for its position on bail. In response, the Commonwealth’s Attorney stated that it did not have a bail recommendation and asked that the Court defer a consideration of bail until the next hearing.
The Court set a bail hearing for October 30, 2015, which was the same day that the co-defendants in the criminal matter, the Complainant’s parents who were out on bail, were scheduled to come before the Court to be arraigned. At the October 30, 2015 hearing, an interpreter was present and provided interpreting services for the Complainant. The Commonwealth, upon agreement with the Complainant, who was now represented by counsel, requested a secured bond of $2,500.00, and the Complainant was granted release on bond. During that hearing, the prosecutor stated, “[W]e don’t believe there’s any real risk to the community. We don’t think there’s any risk of flight.”
Auxiliary aids and services includes qualified interpreters on-site or through video remote interpreting (VRI) services; note takers; real-time computer-aided transcription services; written materials; exchange of written notes; telephone handset amplifiers; assistive listening devices; assistive listening systems; telephones compatible with hearing aids; closed caption decoders; open and closed captioning, including real-time captioning; voice, text, and video-based telecommunications products and systems, including text telephones (TTYs), videophones, and captioned telephones, or equally effective telecommunications devices; videotext displays; accessible electronic and information technology; or other effective methods of making aurally delivered information available to individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
Qualified Individual means any person who is deaf or hard of hearing and requires appropriate auxiliary aids and services for effective communication, and with whom the Commonwealth Entities’ staff should communicate to meet its obligations under the ADA to provide equal access to the Commonwealth Entities’ services, programs, and activities. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
Companion means a family member, friend, or associate of an individual seeking access to a service, program, or activity of a public entity, who, along with such individual, is an appropriate person with whom the public entity should communicate.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)(2).
Disability is defined as it is in the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12102. See also 28 C.F.R. § 35.108. Specifically, a person is “deaf” or “hard of hearing” for the purposes of this Agreement if she has a physical impairment that substantially limits the major life activity of hearing, with or without mitigating measures such as hearing aids or cochlear implants.
Effective communication means communication with persons with disabilities that is “as effective as communication with others.” 28 CFR § 35.160(a)(1). Effective communication is achieved by “furnish[ing] appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with disabilities . . . an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program or activity of a public entity.” See id. § 35.160(b)(1). “In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner. . . .” See id. § 35.160(b)(1).
Participants in judicial proceedings means parties, jurors, witnesses, companions, and spectators.
Video remote interpreting service (“VRI”) shall mean an interpreting service that “provides [] Real-time, full-motion video and audio over a high-speed, wide-bandwidth video or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images” as provided in 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(d).
Qualified interpreter means an interpreter who, via a video remote interpreting (VRI) service or an on-site appearance, is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary, given the deaf or hard of hearing individual’s language skills and education. Qualified interpreters include, for example, sign language interpreters, oral transliterators, and cued-language transliterators. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
Release of claims. The United States does fully and forever release, discharge, and hold harmless the Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV from any and all present or future claims under Title II of the ADA as set forth in the Recitals Section in Paragraphs 8 through 14 of this Agreement in connection with the Complainant, except as provided for in Paragraph 44, below.
Promise to Refrain from Investigation or Suit. In consideration of the terms of this Agreement as set forth above, the United States agrees to refrain from undertaking further investigation or from filing a civil suit under Title II of the ADA related to the allegations in the “Recitals” section of this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed as a waiver by the United States of any right to institute proceedings against any of the Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV for violations of any statutes, regulations, or rules administered by the United States or to prevent or limit the right of the United States to obtain relief under the ADA except as expressly stated in this Agreement.
Effective Communication. The Commonwealth Entities agree that they will take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with participants, members of the public, and companions with disabilities, including individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, are as effective as communications with others. 28 C.F.R. 35.160(a)(1).
Retaliation and Coercion. The Commonwealth Entities shall not retaliate against or coerce in any way any person who made, or is making, a complaint according to the provisions of this Agreement or exercised, or is exercising, his or her rights under this Agreement or the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.134.
ADA Coordinators for Each Judicial Circuit. Within one month of the execution date of this Agreement, the Chief Justice shall send to all circuit and district court chief judges a memorandum requesting that the chief judges of the circuit and district courts within each judicial circuit designate one person to serve as an ADA coordinator for all of the circuit and district courts in the judicial circuit. See Attachment A, proposed memorandum.
A list of the judicial circuit ADA coordinators shall be maintained on the Virginia Judicial System web site and updated as needed.
Dissemination of Contact Information. The Commonwealth Entities shall upon request make available to any member of the public, including any participant in the judicial proceedings, the name, office address, and telephone number of the ADA Coordinator for the Circuit unless one has not yet been designated. Otherwise the requestor will be referred to ADA Coordinator, Department of Human Resources, Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court (“OES”). Further, such information shall be available in an accessible manner on Virginia’s Judicial System web site.
After-hours Interpreting and Additional Interpreter Resources. As required by Virginia Code §§ 19.2-164.1 and 8.01-384.1, the ESSCV has requested that VDDHH identify additional resources to cover after-hours and Nonscheduled Interpreter Requests (“NIR”), for in-person interpreting services. As of August 1, 2018, VDDHH has authorized the ESSCV through his office, OES, to enter into service agreements with one or more of such resources to ensure after-hours coverage.
Within one month after such resources are identified by VDDHH and communicated by VDDHH to the ESSCV, the ESSCV through OES shall distribute this information to all Virginia magistrates, judges, and clerks. Once distributed, this information also shall be available on the judicial branch intranet site and shall be updated as needed.
Effective August 1, 2018, VDDHH and the ESSCV agreed that OES, on behalf of Virginia courts, may independently negotiate a separate contract to secure auxiliary aids and services, not limited to on-demand video remote interpreting (VRI). Under this agreement, OES now has access to a private vendor that provides VRI services on demand, and all magistrates have the ability to access VRI services, twenty-four (24) hours a day. Judges shall be provided training to use the VRI services and shall have access to VRI services directly or through their local magistrate’s office.
Training. In calendar years 2019 and 2020, (i) the ESSCV shall offer at least thirty (30) minutes of live training on ADA issues at each statewide conference for all judges, and (ii) the ESSCV shall offer at least thirty (30) minutes of live ADA training annually at a conference or training seminars for magistrates and district and circuit court clerks. “Live training” means either in-person or a live (non-recorded) webinar.
Reporting.1 For a twenty-three (23) month period beginning March 1, 2019, the ESSCV will provide periodic reports to the Department of Justice. The first report shall be provided on or about July 10, 2019, and additional reports shall be provided on January 10, July 10, and December 31, 2020. The reports shall include information on the following topics:
ADA training for judges, clerks, and magistrates;
ADA accommodation requests for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind, as reported to the ESSCV, which shall include the date of the event, the type and date of the service provided, location of the event, and number of individuals accommodated; and
Current list of judicial circuit ADA coordinators identified by chief judges.
For a twenty-three (23) month period beginning March 1, 2019, the VDDHH shall provide periodic reports to the Department of Justice. The first report shall be provided on or about July 10, 2019, and additional reports shall be provided on January 10, July 10, and December 31, 2020. The reports shall include information on the following topics:
The roster of interpreting agencies and individuals, including the qualifications and certifications of the individual interpreters, from which VDDHH shall draw to accommodate the needs of deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind individuals in Virginia’s court system.
If different from the above, the roster of interpreting agencies and individuals, including the qualifications and certifications of the individual interpreters, approved by VDDHH, from which the Virginia court system shall draw when VDDHH is unable to secure an interpreter.
Judicial system events for which VDDHH secured an interpreter, Communication Access Real Time Translation (“CART”) provider, or other auxiliary aid or service, which shall include the date of the event, the type of the service provided, location of the event, number of individuals accommodated, and the name and qualifications/certifications of the interpreter or CART provider.
Communication assessment tools provided by VDDHH to OES to allow court personnel to determine what services are needed.
Coverage of Involuntary Participation. Throughout this Agreement, terms such as “enjoyment,” “benefit,” or “seek” that in other contexts might imply the voluntary and willing participation of a member of the public in Commonwealth Entities’ programs, services, or activities, shall also refer to a member of the public’s involuntary participation in the Commonwealth’s judicial system programs, services, and activities, such as arrest or detention. 28 C.F.R. § 35.152.
Complaints. During the term of this Agreement, the Commonwealth Entities shall notify the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Virginia, of any lawsuit or complaint they receive or are made aware of, alleging that any of the Commonwealth Entities failed to comply with the ADA with respect to participants in judicial proceedings who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deafblind. Such notification must be provided in writing via certified mail within thirty (30) days of the date that any of the Commonwealth Entities receive notice of the allegation and shall include, at a minimum, the nature of the allegation, the name of the person making the allegation, and any non-privileged documentation possessed by any of the Commonwealth Entities relevant to the allegation. The notification shall reference this provision of the Agreement.
This Agreement shall be in effect for twenty-three (23) months from the Effective Date.
The Commonwealth Entities, for settlement purposes only, to avoid the time and expense of litigation, shall approve a payment of $55,000.00 to be made for the benefit of the Complainant. The payment shall be placed into a special needs trust. Approval of any payment with respect to the Commonwealth Entities is conditioned on execution of a full release and discharge of all claims that could otherwise be asserted by the Complainant, for the facts as set forth in the Recitals Section in Paragraphs 9 through 16 of this Agreement, against: any Virginia magistrate, including all chief magistrates, all former magistrates, and their supervisors and employer; any Virginia judge or Justice, including all former judges, chief judges and the Chief Justice; the Supreme Court of Virginia; the Executive Secretary and the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia, and all employees, agents and assigns of the Supreme Court of Virginia and the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia; and the Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, and all employees, agents and assigns of the Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, arising from the facts underlying the complaint referred to in this Agreement. The Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims executed by the Complainant (“Complainant’s Release”) shall be attached hereto, as Attachment B.
Within thirty (30) days of receiving the signed Complainant’s Release, the Virginia Department of Treasury, Division of Risk Management, on behalf of the Commonwealth Entities shall issue a check in the total amount of $55,000.00 made out to the annuity/special needs trust of the Complainant as further instructed by the Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The check shall be mailed to:
United States Attorney’s Office for Western District of Virginia
310 First St., S.W. Suite 906
Representations. Each Party, as applicable, represents and warrants to each of the other Parties, as of the date of this Agreement, that:
This Agreement has been duly executed by such Party and constitutes a valid and legally binding obligation of such Party, enforceable in accordance with its terms;
Such Party represents and warrants that it has been advised by its counsel of its rights and obligations under this Agreement and enters into this Agreement freely, voluntarily, and without duress; and
Such Party represents and warrants that it is not relying on any promises, inducements, or representations other than those provided herein.
No Other Representations or Warranties. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED HEREIN, NO PARTY MAKES ANY REPRESENTATION TO ANY OTHER PARTY AND EACH PARTY HEREBY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL SUCH OTHER REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, ARISING BY OPERATION OF LAW, OR OTHERWISE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
Notices. All notices and other communications under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given upon (a) delivery by hand (with written confirmation of receipt), (b) delivery by registered mail, return receipt requested, or (c) delivery by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service providing receipt of delivery, and, for any of (a), (b) and (c), using the information set forth below (or such information as may be provided in the future by written notice that has been provided pursuant to this Section):
If to the United States of America,
Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney and Civil Chief
The United States Attorney’s Office, Western District of Virginia
If to former Orange County Circuit Court Chief Judge Daniel R. Bouton ,
Senior Assistant Attorney General/Section Chief
Assistant Executive Secretary & Counsel
If to the Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing,
Pamela Brown Beckner
Eric H. Raff
If to the Office of the Magistrate for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Virginia,
100North Ninth Street
If to the Executive Secretary of the Supreme Court of Virginia,
Modification; Waiver. No modification or amendment to this Agreement, nor any waiver of any rights hereunder, shall be effective unless assented to in writing by the Party to be charged, and the waiver of any breach or default shall not constitute a waiver of any other right hereunder or any subsequent breach or default.
Construction; Language. Any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be applied in the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. As used in this Agreement, the words “include” and “including” and variations thereof shall not be deemed to be terms of limitation, but rather shall be deemed to be followed by the words “without limitation.” The headings in this Agreement shall not be referred to in connection with the construction or interpretation of this Agreement.
Integration. No promise, inducement, or agreement not expressed in this Agreement has been made to any Party in connection with this Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between and among the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof.
Enforcement. If any Party believes that this Agreement or any portion of it has been violated, it shall raise its claim(s) in writing with the Party or Parties believed to have violated the Agreement, and the Parties shall attempt to resolve the concern(s) in good faith. The Party alleged to have violated the Agreement shall have thirty (30) business days from the date of the notification of any breach of this Agreement to cure said breach, prior to the noticing Party instituting any court action to enforce terms of the Agreement. Failure by any Party to seek enforcement of this Agreement pursuant to its terms with respect to any instance or provision shall not be construed as a waiver to such enforcement with regard to other instances or provisions.
Entire Agreement. This Agreement and the attachments hereto constitute the entire agreement between and among the Parties on the matters raised herein, and no other statement, promise, or agreement, either written or oral, made by a Party or agents of a Party, which is not contained in this Agreement, shall be enforceable. This Agreement is limited to the facts set forth herein and does not purport to remedy any potential violations of the ADA, such as violations relating to individuals other than the Complainant, or any other federal law.
Binding. This Agreement is final and binding on the parties, including all principals, agents, executors, administrators, representatives, successors in interest, beneficiaries, assigns, heirs, and legal representatives thereof. All Parties have a duty to so inform any such successor in interest of this Agreement.
Severability. If any term of this Agreement is determined by any court to be unenforceable, the other terms of this Agreement shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect, provided, however, that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights or obligations of the parties, the United States and the Commonwealth Entities and the ESSCV shall engage in good faith negotiations in order to adopt mutually agreeable amendments to this Agreement as may be necessary to restore the parties as closely as possible to the initially agreed upon relative rights and obligations.
1 Although the reporting obligations of the ESSCV and the VDDHH to the Department of Justice pursuant to this Agreement are independent, pursuant to agreement reached among themselves, the ESSCV and VDDHH may submit one report that includes all the information for which each is individually obligated.
310 First St., SW, Suite 906
Telephone: 540-857-2250
laura.rottenborn@usdoj.gov
For the Office of the Magistrate for the Sixteenth Judicial District of Virginia:
AVNEL COATES
Chief Magistrate for the Sixteenth Judicial District
For former Orange County Circuit Court Chief Judge Daniel R. Bouton:
For the Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing:
Director, Virginia Department for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
SEEN AND AGREED ONLY AS TO THE RELEASE OF CLAIMS AND TASKS AND SUPPORT TO BE PROVIDED BY THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA AND HIS OFFICE
KARL R. HADE
Attachment A: Memorandum
To: All Chief Circuit Court Judges All Chief District Judges
Re: Designation of ADA Coordinators
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., was enacted to ensure that all qualified individuals with disabilities enjoy the same opportunities that are available to persons without disabilities. Title II of the ADA guarantees equal opportunity for individuals with disabilities to access state and local government services and programs. As leaders within the court system, all of us bear the responsibility to facilitate prompt and appropriate access for individuals with disabilities, including those who are deaf.
In order to best serve the needs of people with disabilities, I would like to have at least one employee, within the geographic area of each of Virginia’s 31 circuits, designated as an “ADA coordinator.” To minimize the burden, the chief judges of the circuit, general district and juvenile and domestic relations courts within each circuit should consult among themselves to designate one person to serve as ADA coordinator for all of the circuit and district courts in their area. The ADA coordinator may be a judicial assistant, clerk, or court employee who is willing to attend training on ADA requirements and serve as a resource for other court employees and clerks.
I am mindful that circuit court clerks, as local Constitutional officers, are exclusively responsible for ADA accommodations in their offices. If your circuit court clerk is willing to also serve as the ADA coordinator(s) for the courts and other circuit and district clerks within the boundaries of your circuit, that may be the most efficient use of time and resources. For any circuit clerks who are willing to take on this role, we will provide training and resources at no cost to the clerk.
The person you select will provide information and resources to individuals and employees of all levels of court within their geographic area or circuit. No expertise is required to begin, as training and resources will be provided by the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES). ADA questions typically arise in the context of a case or other routine program or proceeding. The ADA coordinator duties would be in addition to the employee’s regular responsibilities.
At the conclusion of the training, the designated ADA Coordinator should be familiar with available resources, including Renee Fleming-Mills, the state-wide ADA Coordinator for the court system, a director within the Office of the Executive Secretary. Your designated ADA coordinator should also be able to answer questions and respond to requests for accommodation.
Once you have selected the person to serve as ADA coordinator for the courts in your area, please provide the name(s) to Renee Fleming Mills (804-786-6455 or by email at ADAcoordinator@vacourts.gov), at OES at your earliest opportunity. Dr. Mills and her staff will continue to serve as a resource for the courts, as needed, and will contact the designated local ADA coordinators about training time and location.
With respect to all designated local ADA Coordinators; their names and contact information, along with information and resources about the ADA, will be provided to all General District Court judges and clerks, Circuit Court judges and clerks, and all magistrates and other employees of the Office of the Executive Secretary.
Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. Please contact Renee Fleming Mills in the Office of the Executive Secretary if you have questions about this memorandum.