New frontiers in disabled rights: “A federal judge has ruled that the U.S. Treasury Department is violating the law by failing to design and issue currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people. Judge James Robertson, in a ruling on a suit by the American Council of the Blind, ordered the Treasury to devise a method to tell bills apart.” The court acted on the basis of the Rehabilitation Act, which guarantees to the disabled “meaningful access” to federal programs. (CNN Money, Nov. 28; decision in American Council of the Blind v. Paulson courtesy FindLaw; decision in PDF form at court website).
More: Here’s an interesting development: the National Federation of the Blind, the best known organization for blind Americans, has issued a press release sharply critical of the lawsuit and the ruling (“dangerously misguided”) (Yahoo/PRNewswire, Nov. 29). According to Dr. Marc Maurer, President of the National Federation of the Blind, “The blind need jobs and real opportunities to earn money, not feel-good gimmicks that misinform the public about our capabilities. Blind people transact business with paper money every day. … [The ruling] argues that the blind cannot handle currency or documents in the workplace and that virtually everything must be modified for the use of the blind. An employer who believes that every piece of printed material in the workplace must be specially designed so that the blind can read it will have a strong incentive not to hire a blind person.” More from the NFB press release:
Blind people traditionally identify paper currency by folding bills of different denominations in different ways. “In reality, blind people do not routinely find that we have been short-changed,” Maurer commented. Machines are readily available to identify paper money for blind people who run businesses or handle large amounts of cash. “Essentially, the United States Treasury has been ordered by the courts to come up with a solution for a nonexistent problem,” Maurer said.
Per the AP, “Government attorneys argued that forcing the Treasury Department to change the size or texture of the bills would make it harder to prevent counterfeiting,” but Judge Robertson was not swayed (“Judge Says Currency Shortchanges the Blind”, AP/Washington Post, Nov. 29). See also Dvorak Uncensored and Orin Kerr.
14 Comments
This may well take the Grand Prize, Walter. What I wonder is, if it is true that “paper money effectively precludes {the blind] from ‘meaningful access to U.S. currency’,” how have millions of blind persons been able cope all this time?? The advocates will say “they haven’t but they just didn’t know it.”
I’ll have more to say on this at my place tomorrow.
You can directly download the opinion here in PDF and avoid the findlaw crap.
Your right wavemaker. What’s next: allowing people who are blind (or people with other disabilities) to sit next to you on the bus, use the same restrooms or be gainfully employed?
To address your assumption of the argument, people who are blind have been able to cope, but have had to take additional measures (including foregoing some of their personal autonomy) for the sole reason that they are blind. Our current cash prohibits a person who is blind from acting with total independence, something the seeing-world takes for granted. To handle cash, a person who is blind must either trust the cash register attendee or bring along a seeing companion. I think if we can print money that gives all persons the same access, then we should do it.
Jay,
It seems hard to accept that this constitutes denial of “Meaningful Access”.
There is a difference between whether this is a situation that is unlawful, as the judge found, or just poor policy, which I think many would accept. The problem I have with this ruling is that the judge took on the role of making public policy. He has in effect ordered the Treasury to spend moneys that were not part of any appropriation to enact a policy that Congress did not approve.
I would have no problem with the Legislature addressing this problem. It seems a worthwhile goal and should be looked into. If it can be done without great cost and inconvenience, I would be for it. I fear that the costs might well be higher than many would expect but it it really is a matter for the elected branches of Government, not one judge, to decide.
And the comments about the bus and restrooms were really over the top. You might as well have suggested internment camps and gone all the way.
“To handle cash, a person who is blind must either trust the cash register attendee or bring along a seeing companion.”
This is false. Having several blind people in my family, all of which who are completely independent, I’m aware that they do not need to do either of these things to handle currency accurately. The debit card has been a help as well.
At least the judge had the good sense not to order printing currency in different colors.
Jetgirl, I’m not sure if you meant this, but you basically supportted the argument that US currency in and of itself is inaccessible to blind users. Indeed, your family members solution requires more than mere access to money, but indeed requires a (I know, heaven forbid) a bank account.
While perhaps a judicial overreach, it’s not as if this was an unknown issue for decades and with very little action on the part of the Treasury (though do note that they have begun to somewhat alter the size of bills).
A more frequent way, btw, to deal with this issue is to simply request all one dollar bills.
Regardless of the merits of the case itself or the actual needs of visually imparied Americans, I’d find it extremely difficult to keep a straight face while arguing that “forcing the Treasury Department to change the size or texture of the bills would make it harder to prevent counterfeiting.” Does anyone seriously believe that the current measures employed would suddenly fail if larger denomination bills were cut with an extra 1/4 inch or so margin on one end? I guess it’s one of those things that only a lawyer could believe.
The lawyers had to hurry up with this one. We are in the waning days of cash; I have some bills in my wallet just for backup, but havn’t used cash in at least 6 months now.
One thing people have to understand is that being disabled is, well, disabling. Society is making increasing attempts to include all, but in the end, the able still will always have a leg up. The only thing left to do would be to legislate handicaping the rest of us.
Oh yes Jay, you’re right, I am a bigot against the disabled. I hate people with infirmities — they’re so…weak.
I guess at the people at the National Federation for the Blind are too.
The member countries of the Euro zone have solved this problem–the different denominations of bills are different sizes. All that is necessary to distinguish among the denominations is to feel them edge-to-edge.
BTW, at least Germany had the same prior to its joining the Euro-zone.
It really is not that complicated.
I’m just going to address a little mentioned aspect of this case. The decision that this does not put an undue burden on the government (because redesigning every bill and retooling the mints and planning the logistics of new bills is not a daunting process to begin with).
Perhaps it would not put an undue burden on the government, but the result of any changes to the size of currency will have ripple effects across private industry.
This is not a ruling that affects only the Treasury but will place a significant burden on everyone else as well.
Think of any machine that accepts bills. They all will have to be changed. Soda machines… Snack machines… Arcade games… Change dispensers… Metro Fare Card dispensers…
Not just the actual receptors with these machines either, but also the repositories within them.
Then there are the money trays at every store… At the banks… Wallets… Money counters…
One of the few things that won’t have to change are dancers’ g-strings.
That’s all just the cost of the equipment. Then there is the time to develop replacements and time lost doing the replacing and the labor involved throughout.
I don’t know about anyone else, but my sodas do not need to get anymore expensive!
“Jetgirl, I’m not sure if you meant this, but you basically supportted the argument that US currency in and of itself is inaccessible to blind users.”
No, she didn’t. She specifically stated that they could properly handle CURRENCY without assistence.
She mentioned that, IN ADDITION, debit cards also helped.
That’s exactly the opposite of whta you said – that is specifically arguing AGAINST currncy being inaccessible to the blind (by literal example of blind people using it without problem).
I have a friend who knows a blind COUPLE who live alone (well, they have teenage or adult children now). They have been completely independent since before the advent of the debit/check card, handlind cash just fine, thank you.
In short, this is a PERFRECT example of “overlawyerd” – the people who are supposedly being represented are themselves opposed to the suggested remedy!
Re: Your right wavemaker. What’s next: allowing people who are blind (or people with other disabilities) to sit next to you on the bus, use the same restrooms or be gainfully employed?
Yeah we wouldn’t want blind people to get the impression that they’re disabled or anything. That would be racist.