Part of why this irks me is that it touches on the two courses I teach regularly, Business and Government Interpreting, and Medical Interpreting. I teach a units on HIPAA and on the ADA. So here's what I'm going to do, even though I do ADA consulting as a business, I'm going to give away some of the milk for free. I am going to give the quick and dirty on your responsibilities vis-a-vis the ADA. I will try to be brief, I will try to not be sarcastic. I will add the disclaimer that I am not a lawyer and that this blog entry should not be construed as legal advice. (I don't know why we always have to say that, but there, it's said, don't sue me.) I'm going to try to do this in plain language.
Quick Primer
The ADA has five titles.
Title I: Employment
This commonly misunderstood title requires accommodations in places of employment. This means that you must accommodate your employees and cannot discriminate against disabled people in hiring. The part of this title that is misunderstood is that it applies only to employers with 15 or more employees. This is done to protect small businesses. The problem is that many businesses totally misunderstand this and thing that if they have less than 15 employees they don't have to accommodate customers. These people are wrong. (As we'll see later). Remember, Title I only applies to your employees, not your customers.
Title II: Non Discrimination in State and Local Government Services
The Feds are already unable to discriminate so this law was set up so everyone below the Feds have to play nice. It's a shame we even need this kind of law. Basically, if you're a government you can't refuse service to people based on disability.
This is what makes stories like this one, in which a Deaf man was held in an Arlington, VA jail for six weeks without and interpreter so inexcusable, because by law it's totally avoidable. And I'm no policing expert, but we do kind of tend to rely on the police and the corrections system to, at minimum, know the law. However, this quote from the sheriff's department lawyers shows that they're either complete jerks, or totally ignorant of the ADA:
"even if the discrimination were intentional, the lawyers write that it
would not violate federal law because there is a rational basis for the
discrimination: "it takes extra resources and creates additional
security considerations to bring in an ASL interpreter,''
That's right, these lawyers think that federal law allows for discrimination on the rational basis that it's expensive, and requires more work. But hey, what's six weeks of totally unnecessary incarceration when there's a couple hundred bucks to be saved? The weirdest part of this story is that it happened in an area with the highest concentration of Deaf people in the country. So you'd think they'd know better. It's inexcusable and the tax payers of Arlington are about to be at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars lighter.
In another instance I had a state university fight me on paying for interpreters for clubs and organizations. They're stance was it was it was expensive and that if they had to pay for interpreters for all clubs they'd be ruined. They also claimed that their use of federal funds didn't necessitate that they follow the ADA. They were wrong on both counts.
Title III: Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
https://nonprofitrisk.org/tools/workplace-safety/nonprofit/c5/ADA.htm
That's right, these lawyers think that federal law allows for discrimination on the rational basis that it's expensive, and requires more work. But hey, what's six weeks of totally unnecessary incarceration when there's a couple hundred bucks to be saved? The weirdest part of this story is that it happened in an area with the highest concentration of Deaf people in the country. So you'd think they'd know better. It's inexcusable and the tax payers of Arlington are about to be at least several hundreds of thousands of dollars lighter.
In another instance I had a state university fight me on paying for interpreters for clubs and organizations. They're stance was it was it was expensive and that if they had to pay for interpreters for all clubs they'd be ruined. They also claimed that their use of federal funds didn't necessitate that they follow the ADA. They were wrong on both counts.
Title III: Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities
"Do you call around for free plumbers, or free electricity? Do you ask for student volunteer accountants?"
ReplyDeleteI would not be surprised if some smaller charities and organizations do this. When I worked for a small nonprofit in Baltimore, we got free IT/computer/tech support from a member and some old hardware. He probably volunteered, but possibly the director asked him directly. I don't know if he got donation receipts or a tax break or anything. I do know he paid full membership.