T.

3/9/94
SBO:LMS:ca

MAR 14 1994 (STAMPED)

XXX
XXX
XXX

Re: Complaints XX

Dear Ms. X :

This letter constitutes the Department of Justice's Letter

of Findings with respect to your complaint filed with our office
under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA],
against the Superior Court of the State of California for Kings
County (the court).

Specifically you are an individual with a hearing impairment

and allege that the court has not taken steps to ensure that
communications with individuals who are hard of hearing are as
effective as communications with others who attend court
sessions. You contended that those persons who attend court
proceedings and need assistive listening devices to hear the
business being conducted before the court are not provided such
devices.

Title II prohibits discrimination against qualified

individuals with disabilities on the basis of their disability in
the services, programs, or activities of a State or local
government such as the court. Our office enforces the
requirements of title II of the ADA for certain public entities,
through investigation, negotiation, and if necessary, referral
for possible litigation.

We have completed our investigation of your complaint. As

discussed below, we conclude that subsequent to your complaint,
the court corrected the areas you alleged were in noncompliance
with title II of the ADA. Therefore, we conclude that the court
is now in compliance with the ADA with respect to the allegation
you raised.
cc: Records CRS Chrono MAF Stewart. XX .lot

01-00173
-2-

Court proceedings are conducted in three1 courtrooms by

the court. At the time of your complaint, the court only had one
large area assistive listening system available for use in its
three courtrooms. This system is an infra red system that works
off the courtroom's public address system and includes three
different types of receivers (regular earphones, induction coil,
and neck induction loop) for different needs of classes of
individuals who are hard of hearing.

After we notified the court of your complaint, Kings

County purchased four more large area systems. In addition, the
county purchased twelve regular earphone receivers, four
induction coil receivers, and two neck induction loop receivers.
Based on these actions, we conclude that the court will have
implemented adequate system for providing effective
communications to those individuals attending court proceedings
who are hard of hearing once the systems are operational.

This letter constitutes our Letter of Findings with respect

to your allegations of discrimination in your administrative
complaint. It does not address, however, any other areas of the
court's compliance with the ADA.

If you are dissatisfied with our determination, you may file

a complaint presenting your allegations of discrimination in an
appropriate United States District Court under title II of the
ADA.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, we may

be required to release this letter and other correspondence and
records related to this complaint in response to a request from a
third party. Should we receive such a request, we will safe-
guard, to the extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the release of information
which could constitute an unwarranted invasion of your or other's
privacy.

Sincerely,

Stewart B. Oneglia
Chief
Coordination and Review Section
Civil Rights Division

1 Subsequent to your complaint, the court added another

courtroom.

01-00174

T.3/9/94
SBO:LMS:ca

MAR 14 1994 (STAMPED)

The Honorable Louis Bissig

Presiding Judge
Superior Court for the State of California
for Kings County
1400 West Lacey Boulevard
Hanford, California 93230

Re: Department of Justice Complaint Number X

Dear Judge Bissig:

 This letter constitutes the Department of Justice's Letter
of Findings with respect to above-referenced complaint filed with
our office under title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), against the Superior Court of the State of California for
Kings County (the court).

Specifically, the complainant, an individual with a hearing

impairment, alleged that the court has not taken steps to ensure
that communications with individuals who are hard of hearing are
as effective as communications with others who attend court
sessions. She contended that those persons who attend court
proceedings and need assistive listening devices to hear the
business being conducted before the court are not provided such
devices.

Title II prohibits discrimination against qualified

individuals with disabilities on the basis of their disability in
the services; programs, or activities of a State or local
government such as the court. Under title II, a public entity
must effectively communicate with individuals who are hard of
hearing. The provision of effective communications may require
that assistive listening systems be used to communicate with
individuals who are hard of hearing. Our office enforces the
requirements of title II of the ADA for certain public entities,
through investigation, negotiation, and if necessary, referral
for possible litigation.

We have completed our investigation of the complaint. As

discussed below, we conclude that subsequent to the filing of the
complaint, the court corrected the area allegedly in
noncompliance with title II of the ADA. Therefore, we conclude
that the court is now in compliance with the ADA with respect to
the allegation you raised.

cc: Records CRS Chrono MAF Stewart.bissig.lof

01-00175
-2-

Court proceedings are conducted in three 1 courtrooms. At

the time the complaint was filed, the court only had one large
area assistive listening system available for use in its three
courtrooms. This system is an infra red system that works off
the courtroom's public address system and includes three
different types of receivers (regular earphones, induction coil,
and neck induction loop) for different needs of classes of
individuals who are hard of hearing.

After we commenced our investigation, Kings County purchased

four more large area systems. In addition, the county purchased
twelve regular earphone receivers, four induction coil receivers,
and two neck induction loop receivers. Based on these actions,
we conclude that once these systems are operational, the court.
will have implemented an adequate system for providing effective
communications to those individuals attending court proceedings
who are hard of hearing. Please provide this office with notice
when the systems are installed.

This letter constitutes our Letter of Findings with respect

to the allegation of discrimination in the administrative
complaint. It does not address, however, any other areas of the
court's compliance with the ADA.

Under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, we may

be required to release this letter and other correspondence and
records related to this complaint in response to a request from a
third party. Should we receive such a request, we will safe-
guard, to the extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act
and the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the release of information
that could constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individuals
privacy.

Sincerely,

Stewart B. Oneglia
Chief
Coordination and Review Section
Civil Rights Division
 1 Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the court
added another courtroom.

01-00176