The California Attorney General recently reconciled the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Brown Act. The Attorney General determined that a city is not required under the ADA to provide, as an accommodation for a disabled member of its city council or an advisory board who is unable to attend a regularly scheduled meeting of the council or board, a teleconferencing connection at the member’s place of residence where the public would not be present.
The Brown Act allows public meetings to be conducted through teleconferencing connections, but requires that members of the public must be permitted to be present at each of the teleconferencing locations.
Under the ADA, employers cannot discriminate against a “qualified individual with a disability because of the disability.” A “qualified individual with a disability” is “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.”
Construing the requirements of the ADA and the Brown Act together, the Attorney General determined that the ability to attend a scheduled meeting at a location that is open to the public is an “essential function” of a member of a city council or advisory board. The Attorney General also concluded that the ability to attend scheduled meetings that are accessible to the public is related to the qualifications of a city council member or advisory board member.
Therefore, according to the Attorney General, holding teleconference meetings at a council or advisory board member’s place of residence is not a reasonable accommodation if members of the public are not allowed to be present at the residence.