Now, isn't that a violation of American Disability Act (ADA)?
If I remember correctly, it doesn't matter if it is a public or a private school, they are still required to provide reasonable accommodations.
However, there are actually a few ways that a school or a company can be excused from being obligated to provide an interpreter.
1) The organization can prove that they cannot afford the interpreter.
2) The company has less than 10-15 employees.
3) The school has a religious affiliation. (i.e. John Doe Christian Academy in the North Pole).
I believe that if they don't meet any of the above qualifications and they still refuse to provide an interpreter, you may be able to contact US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
What are your thoughts? Anyone else have a similar problem?
I am anxious to read more details about this case. Anyone else have similar problems with their employer?
ReplyDeleteI was confused: the person LOST a job offer? Or he was offered a job, but had to bring his own interpreter to work?
ReplyDeleteThe two are different scenarios: if he had to interview without an interpreter and thus was not offered the job, that shows that the intention was never to consider the deaf candidate. That is discrimination based on illegal criteria.
On the other hand, if he was offered the job but had to back out because he was expected to provide his own interpreter, that is also a violation of the ADA: in failure to support the deaf employee by reasonable accommodations or de facto eliminating him without overt discrimination.
He was offered the job but had to back out because he was expected to provide his own interpreter.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the confusion.
Thanks!
Just out of curiosity, was he expected to provide his own interpreter for teacher meetings, etc. or to teach the hearing children?
ReplyDeleteIf you look through the past cases regarding the ADA, no company, not a single one, has ever been able to prove undue hardship. I'm not saying this company/school can afford it, but it would be extremely difficult and expensive to prove in court.
A religious organization is still required to comply with some laws. You may want to research this part a bit more.
Check with your state laws as well. Some states have laws that are even more strict than federal laws, such as requiring ADA compliance for companies with more than 5 employees.
If you send a complaint to the EEOC, you will receive a response in about 6 months suggesting that you go through an arbitration. If you won't be happy with that, contact a lawyer. The lawyer could send a letter of threat that may make the school comply without further action.
You MUST have documentation of EVERYTHING. What happened at the interview, what they said, when they called, any letters sent, and how they informed you that you must provide your own interpreter.
If you ask me, a FUND should be established to pay for interpreters, much like they already do for Telecommunications Relay Services. Everyone pays. In actuality, having to have an interpreter puts you at a disadvantage. ADA is broken. I don't think there should be a requirement, but rather, a fund set up.
ReplyDeleteHe was expected to provide an interpreter for his classroom.
ReplyDelete----------
And that's very interesting idea. I never thought about setting up a fund for interpreters only. I suppose if we apply the TRS / VRS business model, that would certainly alleviate a lot of financial burden upon many interpreting agencies including non-profit organizations. At same time, would that hurt the quality of interpreters?
For some reason, I am thinking UK or France did set up something similar to this idea? Am I wrong?
Thanks!
Yes, Drew, interpreters have been set up in other countries that don't charge either the deaf person or the agency that calls them.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada, however, the premise is that the deaf person doesn't pay. Billing goes to the calling agency, and of course there is a lot of discussion with the calling agency about that! Usually it is about tax deductibility and legal rights.
How much simpler it would be if the model were based on the VRS system of service. Suddely a lot of professionals would be willing to take deaf patients, a lot of lawyers accepting deaf clients, and above all, a lot of employers willing to hire the deaf. Oh, yes, and deaf businesses would be more willing to seek hearing customers and increase their livelihood.
Food for serious thought.