Office of the President,
Borough of Queens, City of New York
Citation of Honor
In grateful recognition of
Her exceptional support for individuals with disabilities. Ms. Weed’s medical condition increased her knowledge of the hardships that disabled individuals face. She utilized her paralegal background to advocate on behalf of this group of people. Ms. Weed’s dedication has inspired her fellow citizens and has helped to rally others to her cause.
October 24th, 2008,
Seal State and City of New York
Signature, Helen M. Marshall,
President of the Borough of Queens
May 21, 2008
Mr. Robert Tilly
Human Rights Commission
Flushing, New York
Dear Mr. Tilly:
As per our conversation, yesterday, I am sending you our letter and petition.
We have a new Director of Nursing Services, Ms. Naomi Henry (who apparently also works at a related Brooklyn Nursing Home), who is making these new “rules”. Upon discussion with her and from what we hear from the Resident council “facilitator”, the DNS is not interested in laws concerning personal liberties and self-determination for residents.
Waterview seems to be acting as some kind of hiring and placement agency for nurses and CAN’s. Our lobby is at times, filled with applicants during the day. During conversation with them, many residents and current Waterview CAN’s have been told that these applicants are being “interviewed”, here at this agency, at Waterview and then “placed” in other New York nursing homes (there is no identifying “nurses’ agency” sign, anywhere at Waterview.
Ms. Henry, new DNS, has now stated that these residents may not converse with these applicants. This “rule” seems unusual because these men and women are seemingly applying for jobs, in which they will be interacting residents in nursing, yet they are barred from conversing with them (?).
Some residents have voiced the opinion that Ms. Henry is barring sometimes forcibly removing residents from their own lobby, in or der that these “agency” operations, may continue, out of the sight, of residents and their families.
This kind of removal and barring of residents, has been disruptive, unpleasant and unsettling to watch. We believe it is violative, of at least Title III of the ADA, Title 10 of the New York Code 415.1 (b) (4), compliance with all pertinent federal, state and local laws.
We would appreciate your looking into these actions and this barring of residents from their own lobby. Thank you, sincerely, for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
Vice-President, Resident Council
Commission on Human Rights
New York, New York
Patricia L. Gatling
Commissioner and Chair
Please refer all communication to:
Queens Community Service Center
June 18, 2008
Mrs. Anthony J. R..,
Waterview Nursing Care Center
Dear Mr. R..:
The Commission On Human Rights received a complaint that residents of the Waterview NCC are no longer being permitted to sit or congregate in the facility’s lobby area. The complainant states that residents had equal access to use and enjoy this part of the facility up to about two months ago when there was an abrupt change of policy.
The Commission on Human Rights is New York City government’s civil rights law enforcement agency. (Administrative Code of the City of New York, Title 8). Person with disabilities qualify as one of the protected classes covered by the Human Rights Law.
The purpose of this letter is to inquire whether it is the policy of Waterview Nursing Care Center to restrict or prevent use of the facility’s lobby by its residents or patients. I would like to speak with you about this matter and I’m available to meet with you at the facility I can be contacted by phone. I look forward to hearing with you. Thank you.
Human Rights Specialist
C: K. Bracken AHRS II
T. Finkelstein, AHRS II
Protecting and Promoting Human Rights Since 1955
Outcome: Mr. Tilley came to Waterview and the policy of wheelchair residents not being allowed to go into the loby was overturned.
Letter explaining ADA violations and legal citations on violations.
Will be entering true copy of the letter composed by Lynn Weed and signed by 35 Waterview residents.
Which helped to overturn policy.