Accommodation
of
environmentally sensitive people in a court of justice
A request for accommodation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) was successfully filed for better access to a
courthouse.
Keywords: environmental illness, multiple chemical
sensitivity, MCS, electrical sensitivity, EHS, accommodation, Americans with
Disabilities Act, ADA, court, courthouse, courtroom, public building
The need for accommodation
People with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) or
electrical hypersensitivity (EHS) often have to avoid many public
buildings. But sometimes it is
unavoidable, such as when attending a hearing in a court of justice.
In this case, the defendant and multiple witnesses for the
defendant had MCS and/or EHS, and the court hearing was expected to last
several hours. The hearing was in
a small courthouse with only one courtroom. It was considered asking if the hearing could be held
outdoors, but that was not realistic.
The defense attorney informally discussed the issue with the judge and
offered to host the session at a different location, but the judge didnŐt agree
to it. The judge uses various
recording and office equipment at his podium, which all would have had to be
moved, so the refusal was reasonable.
The courtroom was visually inspected and sniffed days before
the hearing, but the EMF levels were not measured. The room didnŐt smell moldy, fragranced or have much odor to
it and the staff explained that their computers did not use any wireless
communication. However, there were
no windows, the witness stand was right next to the judgeŐs electronic
equipment, and there was overhead fluorescent lighting. There was also a large electronic
clock, which was right next to the witness stand and about 8 feet from the
defense table.
A paralegal working for the defense attorney wrote the
following request, which was submitted on the attorneyŐs letterhead:
REQUEST FOR ACCOMMODATIONS
COMES NOW Defendant, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby requests
this court to make accommodations for DefendantŐs upcoming hearing due to the
fact that Defendant and many of the witnesses for this case are environmentally
sensitive.
Defendant hereby requests the following
accommodations:
1.
Disclose the schedule for insecticide
spraying in the building (over the last 2 months).
2.
Turn off all fluorescent lighting in
the courtroom. Defendant will
bring a lamp for the PlaintiffŐs table, the DefendantŐs table, and one for the
Judge (as required for safety).
3.
Turn off the JudgeŐs clock
4.
Allow Defendant to measure the
electromagnetic emissions in the room prior to starting the hearing (including
near the witness chair).
5.
Allow the witnesses to testify from the
DefendantŐs table as necessary.
6.
Allow the witnesses to wait outside,
and enter when called to the witness stand.
7.
Expedite the hearing to allow only 30
minutes of testimony for each side, so that Defendant has to spend a limited
amount of time in the courtroom.
The court responded back in writing, which included these
words:
CourtŐs own motion: to clarify time restraints at hearing
IT IS ORDERED:
Insecticide spray has not been used at
the court since about 2008 [i.e. 5 years before] to the CourtŐs knowledge. Fluorescent lights may be turned off in
the courtroom. Defense may provide
lamps if desired. The courtŐs
digital clock may be used without display. Electromagnetic emissions in the courtroom may be measured
at the defense expense/discretion prior to the hearing. Witnesses have not been required and
will not be required to wait inside the court to testify. All witnesses, including the defendant,
must testify from a location best suited to have their voice audibly recorded
and heard by the opposing party and must be located to be clearly seen by the
opposing party.
On-site
preparations
Two helpers arrived early and brought along five portable
lamps and several long extension cords.
Desk lamps were put on the judgeŐs podium, the defense table , and the
plaintiffŐs table. The most
powerful lamp was placed near the witness stand and pointed at the ceiling, to
provide general illumination, as well as illumination of the witness
stand. A lamp with a clamp was
clamped onto a chair in the spectator section and directed on the wall for
general illumination.
The court room was about 20x40 ft. (7x13 m) with lightly
colored walls and ceiling, so the five lamps provided sufficient
illumination. Battery-powered
lanterns were available to the audience, but were never used.
The electrical environment was measured with the fluorescent
lights off. The overall
radio-frequency and low-frequency magnetic fields were low for such a building
(about 0.01 microwatts/m2 and 0.1 milligauss), though the level of
dirty electricity was extreme (above 2000 GS units).
The witness stand was indeed ŇhotÓ (up to 8 milligauss),
while the defense table was the safest seat in the room, so it was fine for
people with EHS to testify there.
All the microphones used a cable, none were wireless. The judgeŐs big clock did not radiate,
so it was not necessary to turn it off.
The room was better than expected, but still not suitable
for people with severe environmental illness to spend hours inside.
During the hearing
The judge decided to reject the defenseŐs request for an
expedited hearing, which would only allow 30 minutes of testimony. Instead, the judge limited each witness
to 30 minutes.
The defense didnŐt need to call any witnesses, so there was
no need for the alternative witness stand.
The environment in the room was pretty good, just not good
enough for the four hours the hearing took. The witnesses and the audience were
free to go in and out as they pleased, without disturbing the proceedings. Some spent most of the time on the
porch of the courthouse. Two wore
masks to protect against the fumes.
It was important that the witnesses kept their minds as crisp as
possible, in case they were needed.
The Defendant could not leave and just had to endure
it. The lack of fluorescent
lighting helped.
Notes
Various details and names have been omitted to protect
privacy. Some details have been
changed for brevity and clarity.
The defendant was exonerated.
2016