The EEOC's guidelines on the employment of food service workers. The guidelines make clear that HIV is not a food-borne disease and that an employee's or potential employee's status as HIV-infected is not alone a sound basis on which to base hiring or employment assignment decisions.
Passed by Congress in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was intended to ensure that people living with disabilities have access to all of the same opportunities as those without disabilities. The ADA extended coverage provided by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to employees and participants in federal agencies and federally-funded programs by applying its requirements to the private sector as well as to state entities. The ADA defines disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment." As a result of the ADA being enacted, thousands of people have benefited not only from its prohibitions on discrimination in employment, transportation, and public accommodations, but also from its requirements that facilities and public spaces be made more accessible to people with physical disabilities. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its first decision addressing the ADA as it relates to HIV infection as a disability (see Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)). Since then, the Court has interpreted the language of the ADA in ways that have severely limited its scope of coverage (see Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)). In response, Congress is considering a bill that would reinstate some of the original intent of the ADA and specifically reject the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton and Toyota, while seeking to reaffirm the court's reasoning in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline (480 U.S. 273 (1987)), which broadly interpreted the definition of disability in the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Part 1630 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations was issued by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to the regulations themselves, “[t]he purpose of this part is to implement title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.) (ADA), requiring equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and sections 3(2), 3(3), 501, 503, 506(e), 508, 510, and 511 of the ADA as those sections pertain to the employment of qualified individuals with disabilities.” To check for updates to this part, consult the Government Printing Office web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.
To help employers comply with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) issued this guidance document, which explains each section of Title I and offers practical illustrations to demonstrate how the law applies in various situations.
Part 35 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations was issued by the Department of Justice pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in order to implement the requirements contained within Title II of the Act, which applies to state and local governments. To check for updates to this part, consult the Government Printing Office web site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/index.html.
To help state and local governments comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the U.S. Department of Justice issued this guidance document, which explains each section of Title II and offers practical illustrations to demonstrate how the law applies in various situations.
Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, Tenth Circuit, January 7, 2005: Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief and Amicus Brief by the Training and Advocacy Support Center, National Employment Lawyers Association, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, Centers Legal Initiatives Project and the American Association of People with Disabilities. The Legal Center Serving Persons with Disabilities represented the plaintiff on appeal.
The amici here urged reversal on the grounds that the relevant case law and EEOC guidelines all hold that involuntary reassignment is actionable and that to find otherwise would undermine the remedial purpose of all federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
This document contains both the motion for leave to file an amicus brief pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the amicus brief itself. As per the Rule, the motion for leave addresses the movants interest, desirability of the brief to the court and states that the matters asserted therein are relevant to the disposition of the case. Movants here are either national or Colorado state non-profit advocacy organizations of and/or for people with disabilities. As such, they have expertise in and a significant, on-going interest in the interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. In order to proceed to trial, plaintiffs suing under the ADA and CADA must establish that they suffered some harm in the form of an adverse employment action. Movants concern is that the lower courts holding is incorrect and will have an undesirable impact on public policy and future litigation.
The amicus brief advocates reversal from both stare decis and public policy perspectives. Their research of the plain language of the ADA and CADA, case law and EEOC guidelines dictate the result that an employer may not compel a qualified individual with a disability to accept an accommodation that is neither required nor needed. Employers are not entitled to use anti-discrimination laws in an antithetical way to limit, segregate or remove employees from the public eye because of unreasonable fears and prejudices concerning their disabled status. In determining whether a plaintiff has suffered harm, courts must construe the meaning liberally in order to effectuate the laws remedial purposes. Actionable employment practices include the obvious such as docking pay or responsibilities, but also include requiring an employee to accept different duties or utilize a lesser degree of skill than his previous assignment.
Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, 10th Circuit, Amicus Brief by ACLU, et al
2005-01-06
Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Bank, 10th Circuit, January 7th, 2005: Motion of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Boulder County AIDS Project, Northern Colorado AIDS Project, and Whitman-Walker Clinic, for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in support of plaintiff-appellant, urging reversal
On a wrongful employment action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state anti-discrimination laws, amici contend that the direct threat affirmative defense is not applicable here because an HIV-positive phlebotomist may safely draw blood.
This document contains both the motion for leave to file an amicus brief pursuant to Rule 29(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the amicus brief itself. The organizations represented on this brief are national or Colorado state advocacy organizations with relevant specialized knowledge including constitutional and individual rights of HIV-positive citizens, employment discrimination based on HIV status and the ADA, healthcare practices and outreach regarding HIV, and phlebotomy practices and HIV.
Amici state that exaggerated fears and misconceptions about HIV transmission will be used to justify discrimination. In order for an employer to successfully invoke the direct threat affirmative defense there must be a significant risk of substantial harm. Objective scientific evidence from naturally recognized sources such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) shows that the chances of transmission from the phlebotomist to a donor are so statistically unlikely that they are essentially zero. Phlebotomy is not a procedure that the CDC prohibits HIV status employees from performing. Millions of people donate blood every year and there is no known instance of phlebotomist to donor transmission. Strong public policy concerns are raised by the lower courts dismissal of plaintiffs claims. ADAs stated purpose is to protect disabled individuals from employment decisions based on irrational prejudice and fear.
Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Center, 10th Circuit, Amicus Brief by LAMBDA, et al,
2005-01
Couture v. Bonfils Memorial Blood Center, 10th Circuit, January 2005: Amicus Brief by American Academy of HIV Medicine, International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care, National Association of People with AIDS, Western Colorado AIDS Project, and Womens Lighthouse Project. Amici collectively represent and treat hundreds of thousands of individuals throughout the United States and worldwide who are infected with HIV. Based on their experience and knowledge about the course, effects and treatment of HIV disease, amici understand that HIV invariably substantially limits the major life activities of those living with the disease and that people with HIV commonly are regarded as substantially limited as well.
Urging reversal of the lower courts ruling, the amici here address the issue of whether appellants HIV-positive status qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and answer in the affirmative. Amici defend this position on three grounds: (1) The text and legislative history of the ADA establish that the act provides broad protections to people with HIV, (2) HIV infection is a disability, and (3) HIV-positive individuals are regarded as disabled.
On the first point, amici point out the broad intent of congress in drafting the ADA as well as the verbatim use of the definition of disability from the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 which recognized HIV as a disability. On the second point, amici discuss the three step analysis used by courts to determine whether a plaintiffs disability falls within the ADAs definition. Amici also address the judicial/legislative meaning of major life activity and, in citing both the physical impairments of HIV and the limitations of procreating and sexual relationships as a result of infection, contend that appellants HIV-positive status meet this definition. Amici contend that the Supreme Court ruling in Bragdon, and subsequent federal rulings, compels recognition of appellants HIV-positive status as a disability under the ADAs definition. On the third point, amici contend that the ADAs protection of those regarded as disabled applies directly to the appellant whose employer regarded him as being substantially impaired and whose termination was based on fears and stereotypes. Amici contend that the termination based on fears and/or stereotypes about plaintiffs disability is precisely what the ADA was created to combat.
Saavedra v. Nodak Enterprises, United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division
First Amended Complaint, Gregory Nevins, Jonathan Givner, Lambda Legal Defense & Education Fund and C. Michael Bozeman, Esq.
2004-11-12
This employment discrimination complaint neatly lays out an effective challenge to an employers discharge of an HIV positive employee on the unfounded basis that the employee poses a direct threat to co-workers and those around him. The fired employee alleges that his termination, and the employers failure to provide a reasonable accommodation that would allow him to keep working, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Plaintiff Saavedra, a qualified auto glass installer with 25 years of experience, was fired solely on the basis of his HIV-positive status . Upon his termination, defendant provided Saavedra with a written Personnel Action Form explaining that the reason for his termination was that his HIV-positive status posed a direct threat to other employees. With no evidence that Saavedra was unable to perform the essential functions of his job without accommodation or that his HIV status posed a direct threat to those around him, Saavedras termination was the product of defendants erroneous assumptions about HIV transmission, unsupported fears and stereotypes. This type of discrimination, based on medically unsound beliefs about the danger that a person with HIV presents, is precisely the type of prejudice that the ADA was designed to combat.
Plaintiff sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 when the United States government rejected his Foreign Service Officer application on the grounds that his HIV-positive status precluded him from fulfilling an essential job function namely, worldwide availability to serve abroad and that, in the governments view, his status would unreasonably require expensive and disruptive medical travel. It was undisputed that plaintiff was exceptionally qualified for the position. In this D.C. Circuit Court opinion, plaintiff successful appealed from the district courts grant of summary judgment which held that (1) plaintiffs HIV-positive status was a direct threat to his health and, alternatively, (2) accommodating plaintiffs disability would place an undue burden on the employer. Defendants alleged non-pretextual reason for rejecting plaintiffs application his alleged asthma was also disputed.
In reversing and remanding for further proceedings, the Circuit Court found that several issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The direct threat defense must be based on an individualized assessment of the individuals present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. Here, it was undisputed that plaintiff could receive adequate medical care in at least 68 percent of the Foreign Services overseas posts. In examining whether this amounted to worldwide availability, the Court looked to Foreign Service statutes and regulations, written job descriptions and the experiences of incumbents in similar jobs. The Court found that the statutes, regulations and job descriptions failed to define worldwide availability and that plaintiff presented evidence of officers who were geographically limited for a variety of reasons. Thus, the record revealed a genuine issue of material fact regarding plaintiffs ability to perform the essential job function of worldwide availability. The reasonableness o plaintiffs second proposed accommodation, that he utilize vacation and personal time for medical care, was similarly a disputed fact. In acknowledging that the Act does not provide a comprehensive list of reasonable accommodations, the court noted that that the parties presented conflicting medical evidence about the frequency of plaintiffs health care appointments and that some amount of medical travel and expenses were typically incurred by other Foreign Service Officers without undue hardship on the government. Finally, the court rejected defendants alleged non-pretextual reasons for failing to hire plaintiff because, among other things, officers with asthma had previously been hired.
Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc., 400 F.3d 702 (9th Cir. 2005)In this case, American Airlines denied jobs to three HIV positive flight attendant applicants, both because their HIV status meant they didnt meet AAs medical requirements, and because all 3 failed to disclose their status on the pre-employment medical questionnaire forms. The federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the applicants can take their case to court even though they lied about their HIV-positive status. .American Airlines had made tentative job offers in 1998 and 1999 to the three men pending medical and background checks. .Blood tests found the men were HIV positive, a condition they declined to list on a medical history form in their applications, and the job offers were rescinded. In their lawsuit against American, based on the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, and the CA state constitutional right to privacy, the men claimed that the blood tests violated their right to privacy. A lower court dismissed their cases, but the federal appeals court ruled that the men had a right to a a hearing on their claims. The appeals court found that American did not justify its blood testing before it had completed its background checks. It also said the applicants right to privacy may have been violated as the job applicants did not consent to all testing of their blood and may have been misled on the nature of the testing. The court stated that "Many hidden medical conditions, like HIV, make individuals vulnerable to discrimination once revealed," and that the current law "allow[s] applicants to keep these conditions private until the last stage of the hiring process..
Opinion Amended on Denial of Rehearing by Leonel v. American Airlines, Inc., 2005 WL 976985, 16 A.D. Cases 1536, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3553, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4865 (9th Cir.(Cal.) Apr 28, 2005) (NO. 03-15890, 03-15893, 03-15897).
In a 6 to 3 decision of potential impact for people with HIV, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that courts must examine benefit denials by insurance companies carefully when circumstances indicate that the company’s financial considerations may have affected a benefits decision. The ruling recognizes that the apparent conflict of interest created when an insurance company is both the reviewer and payer of claims is one of many factors to consider, and offers guidance to federal judges reviewing medical disability and health insurance determinations in group policies. Although the plaintiff in this case was not HIV-positive, she suffered from severe fatigue, a condition that many people with advanced HIV disease frequently experience.
The plaintiff had applied for and was granted long-term disability benefits through her employer when she became disabled with a heart condition that caused severe fatigue and prevented her from doing any kind of work. MetLife, as administrator of the employer’s ERISA-governed long-term disability insurance plan, had the authority to make disability determinations and was also responsible for making payments to beneficiaries. When MetLife terminated the employee’s disability benefits based on a determination that she was able to do sedentary work, she brought a claim under ERISA alleging a conflict of interest on the part of MetLife. The court found that MetLife, as reviewer and payer, did have a conflict of interest in this situation. The court further found that the conflict could be considered as a factor in determining whether or not the administrator abused its discretion, and that the significance of the factor would be determined by the circumstances of the case.
Prepared by the U.S. Department of Justice in September, 2005, and updated in February, 2006, this guide provides a basic overview of federal laws that offer antidiscrimination protections to people with disabilities, including those with HIV/AIDS. Links and contact information for the federal agencies and organizations charged with enforcement of these laws, and statutory citations, is included. Laws covered include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Telecommunications Act, Fair Housing Act, Air Carrier Access Act, Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act, National Voter Registration Act, Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehab Act), and the Architectural Barriers Act.
This chart summarizes the guidelines and policies currently in place regarding HIV-positive health care workers (HCW) in all 50 states, as well as some U.S. territories. To our knowledge, it is the most comprehensive compilation of this information available. For each state, the chart includes any relevant guidelines, statutes, or regulations, as well as definitions of 'HCW' and 'invasive procedure' adopted by the state. It also includes information on the state's policy related to testing HCWs for HIV, notification of patients, and implementation of restrictions on the practice of HIV-positive HCWs.
The guidelines, statutes, and regulations referenced in this document were adopted between 1991 and 1993 in response to a CDC directive that was eventually codified. In the 15 years since these policies were put in place, the limited ways in which HIV transmission is a genuine risk, and the absence of such risk to health care patients, has been solidly confirmed . In 2000, Professor Larry Gostin called for a revision of the national policy restricting the practices of HIV-positive HCWs, concluding that such a policy is not necessary because of the negligible risk of HIV transmission from HCW to patient. Gostin also asserted that, because the policy unnecessarily stigmatizes HIV-positive HCWs, some HCWs might avoid or delay testing, or leave the medical profession altogether. (See Lawrence O. Gostin, A Proposed National Policy on Health Care Workers Living with HIV/AIDS and Other Blood-Borne Pathogens, 284 JAMA 1965 (Oct. 18, 2000)).
The CDC’s public acknowledgement of, and efforts to reduce, HIV-related stigma run counter to the CDC’s own policy on HIV-positive HCWs. The CDC has stated that “the stigmatization of persons infected with HIV and the groups most affected by HIV… is a barrier to testing.” (See 49 MMWR 1062 (Dec. 1, 2000). At the same time, the CDC has issued, and maintained for more than 15 years, a policy that overtly stigmatizes HIV-positive HCWs, sometimes even at the expense of testing. Perhaps now is the time to revisit the issue and call on the CDC to amend its recommendations related to HIV-positive HCWs.
This document created by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) offers guidance on how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to health care workers. Presented in question and answer format, this guide addresses numerous issues that may be of concern specifically to health care workers, including definition of disability, qualification, reasonable accommodation, direct threat to safety, disclosure of medical information, and enforcement. The guide includes several examples to illustrate various scenarios in which health care workers may find themselves. Each example is based on an actual case, and includes citations.
In this statement provided to the Center for HIV Law & Policy, Professor Larry Gostin, an internationally recognized public health lawyer, is once again calling on the CDC to revisit its policy on HIV-infected health care workers. According to Gostin, "It is now time to revisit this issue. As we work to advance the idea that HIV testing is always in the individual’s interest, that HIV is a treatable, manageable disease, and that HIV stigma is on the decline, we must ensure that national policy reflects these ideals."
This report summarizes discussion from two international electronic fora in which advocates, service providers, and HIV-positive women discussed services and policies related to the sexual and reproductive health of HIV-positive women. While the discussions spanned numerous countries and cultures, common threads appeared regardless of the geographical or cultural context. These threads provide lessons for all advocates seeking to promote the well-being of HIV-positive women. Issues such as confidentiality, domestic abuse, and reproductive rights were discussed, with the overarching issue being the high degree of stigma and discrimination experienced by HIV-positive women. Most strikingly, the discussions revealed widespread violations of the human rights of HIV-positive women as a result of the stigma and discrimination that they faced. These violations provided a backdrop to virtually all other topics discussed, creating major obstacles to the attainment of appropriate care and services by HIV-positive women. Another major theme was the lack of the most basic services responsive to the needs of HIV-positive women. Women described significant barriers at the domestic, community, regional and national level in realizing their rights and sexual and reproductive health. Among those mentioned included: inaccessibility of health centers; lack of respect for female patients' rights and judgmental attitudes among health care workers. The report is published by EngenderHealth, Harvard University, International Community of Women Living with HIV/AIDS, Ipas, and the United Nations Population Fund.
Between March 22 and April 17, 2007, amFAR, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, conducted an online survey to assess stigma facing HIV-positive women in the United States. The survey revealed that HIV-positive women continue to face a high level of stigma in both their personal and their professional lives. The results showed pervasive negative views of HIV-positive women and a high level of discomfort interacting with them. The majority of respondents were uncomfortable with having an HIV-positive woman as a healthcare or childcare provider; most believed that HIV-positive women should not have children. Twenty percent of respondents would not be comfortable with having an HIV-positive woman as a close friend. Many of these responses were based on misinformation and lack of understanding about how HIV is transmitted. These results document how persistent HIV stigma creates obstacles for HIV-positive women on both the personal and professional levels, and how lack of information creates and sustains stigma.
This slide presentation, created by Dr. Susan J. Blumenthal of amfAR, summarizes the survey results. The complete survey results will be available in the Resource Bank after amFAR has fully mined the data collected.
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (“CEDAW”), addresses women’s rights within the political, social, economic, cultural, and family life. It calls for state parties to overcome barriers of discrimination against women in areas of legal rights, education, employment, health care, politics, and finance, and sets benchmarks. Particularly relevant to HIV/AIDS issues are: the definition of discrimination against women (Article 1); a mandate that states condemn discrimination in all its forms and ensure a legal framework that provides protection and embodies the principle of equality (Article 2); mandate of the end of discrimination in employment, including the right to work, employment opportunities, equal renumeration, free choice of profession and employment, social security, and protection of health, including maternal health (Article 11); requirement of steps to eliminate discrimination in health care, including family planning access (Article 12); a focus on the unique problems that rural woman face in access to health care and adequate living conditions (Article 14); requirment of steps to ensure equality in marriage and family relations, including the right to freely determine the number and spacing of children (Article 16).
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“CERD”) is an international treaty designed to protect individuals from discrimination based on race that is both intentional or the result of neutral policies. Particularly relevant to HIV/AIDS issues are: the requirement that state parties take concrete measures in social, economic, cultural, and other fields to ensure the adequate development and protection of certain racial groups or individuals belonging to them for the purpose of guaranteeing them the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms (Article 2); and the requirement that state parties undertake to prohibit and eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law in the enjoyment of rights including the right to work and to free choice of employment, the right to housing, the right to public health, medical care, social security, and social services, and the right to education and training (Article 5).
As a treaty, CERD is binding on all parties that ratify it; those who sign but do not ratify it are obligated not to act contrary to the purpose of the convention under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention. State parties must submit periodic reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination detailing how they are giving effect to CERD. Moreover, under Articles 11-13, if a state party is not giving effect to the provisions of CERD, another state party may bring this to the attention of the Committee, which will collect information from the relevant state parties and, if the dispute cannot be reconciled, will form an ad hoc commission to investigate and issue recommendations. Under Article 14, a state party has the option of allowing the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals claiming that the state party has violated their rights under CERD, and the Committee will issue recommendations to the state party accordingly.
The United States has ratified CERD, but has not exercised the option set forth in Article 14.
A revised and consolidated version of the original guidelines published in 1996, the purpose of the Guidelines is “to assist States in creating a positive, rights-based response to HIV that is effective in reducing the transmission and impact of HIV and AIDS and is consistent with human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The Guidelines are a joint project of the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNAIDS. The consolidated guidelines include the revised Guideline 6, which reflects the human rights dimensions of access to HIV prevention, treatment, care, and support. The document consists of three parts: 1) twelve guidelines for state action; 2) recommendations for dissemination and implementation of the Guidelines; and 3) a description of the human rights principles underlying a positive response to HIV. The primary users are intended to be states, but it is also meant to inform intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, networks of people living with HIV, community-based organizations, networks on ethics, law, human rights, and HIV, and AIDS service organizations. It is also useful for any person looking for interested in a rights-based approach to HIV/AIDS and specific steps needed to implement such an approach.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the “ICESCR”) represents one-third of what is informally referred to as the “International Bill of Rights.” The other two thirds consist of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The ICESCR outlines universal economic, social and cultural rights; particularly relevant to HIV/AIDS issues are: the right to the highest attainable standard of health (Article 12); the right to education (Article 13); the right to work (Article 7); the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (Article 15); the right to social security (Article 9); the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing, and housing (Article 11); and the right to participate in cultural life (Article 15).
As a convention, the ICESCR is binding on all parties that ratify it; those who sign but do not ratify it are obligated not to act contrary to the purpose of the convention under Article 18 of the Vienna Convention. Like the ICCPR, parties to the ICESCR are obligated to make periodic reports on their compliance with the convention to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee also prepares “General Comments” interpreting the ICESCR and exchanges general views on the rights of the ICESCR.
However, unlike the ICCPR, the ICESCR has no optional protocol that would allow victims of violations of ICESCR to present complaints before the Committee on ESCR against a state that has ratified the convention and violates its obligations; however, in April 2008, a UN working group approved a draft of such an optional protocol, and sent it to the UN Human Rights.
The United States has signed, but not ratified, the ICESCR.
