Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ada Accommodations Title 2 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney and disability advocate says county modified Title 2 policies without public discussion, alleges denied closed‑captioning accommodation
Summary
An attorney and disability advocate told Ventura County supervisors on April 8 that the county had posted Title III guidance on its website while failing to follow Title II procedures for public‑entity accommodations and that she was denied a requested closed‑captioning accommodation for a job interview.
Deborah Mayer Morris, an attorney and disability advocate, urged Ventura County supervisors on April 8 to publicly discuss recent modifications she said were being made to the county’s Title 2 accessibility policies and to correct what she described as an improper application of Title III rules to county processes.
“For those of you that don't know, the ADA has 3 titles,” Mayer Morris told the board during the public comment period. “This 1 is employment. Title 2 relates to you… This is not on your website.” She said the county website contained Title III guidance intended for private businesses rather than Title II rules that apply to public entities.
Mayer Morris said she had requested closed captioning for an oral job interview and had filed multiple communications seeking effective communication accommodations; she told the board she received a county letter months later attributing the problem to her not knowing “how to turn it on.” She said county staff members did not know how to operate captioning tools and that she was not offered an in‑person interview as an alternative. “Title 2 requires that people like me who have a hearing disability that's well documented can have closed captioning,” she said.
Mayer Morris also criticized an appeal route described in the county material — an appeal to an ADA steering committee — saying no such committee exists for the county and that Title II processes require appeals be filed with the executive office. She asked the board to pause the policy change and hold public discussion because, she said, the disability community had been “disenfranchised.”
The board did not take immediate action on the comment; the item the speaker referenced was before the board as part of the consent agenda. Chair Tara Parvin acknowledged receipt of the comment and the meeting proceeded to other business. No county staff member provided a policy response on the record during the public comment time.
Mayer Morris’s remarks were recorded into the meeting minutes as public comment; she asked the board to revisit both website content and internal procedures that govern accommodation appeals and effective communication.
