On Wed, 16 Jan 2002, Geoff Shang wrote: > Hi: > > Excuse the off-topic reply, but I can't let an educational opportunity go > by like this. > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Rich Caloggero wrote: > > > MIT and other private institutions are not covered by ADA > > regulations (508 etc), at least this is my understanding. Not 508, certainly, because 508 applies to the Federal Government. But the ADA most certainly does apply. Private homes are not covered, but MIT is by no means "private," under the meaning of law as used in the ADA. It is what is known as a "Employer," (Title One), and a "Public Accomodation," (Title Three), to name just a few things about MIT of which I am aware. There may be other ways in which MIT is covered. But, don't take my word for it. Check this out for yourself with the U.S. Department of Justice at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm > > Can't comment on 508. But not covered by the ADA? Then who *IS* covered > by it? Maybe I don't have a good handle on what the ADA is, but here in > Australia, no-one is spared from our DDA legislation by vertue of who they > are, and this is, IMHO, how it should be. someone care to enlighten me on > this? > > Geoff.. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > -- Janina Sajka, Director Technology Research and Development Governmental Relations Group American Foundation for the Blind (AFB) Email: janina at afb.net Phone: (202) 408-8175 Chair, Accessibility SIG Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF) http://www.openebook.org
