HOH Interpreters & Deaf clients

B

Byrdie714

New Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
8,889
Reaction score
0
A respectable member of AD pose this question on another thread and its a good question.

Whose rights under ADA is beng violated? The HOH interpreter who has the right to work? Or the deaf consumer?
 
Byrdie714 said:
A respectable member of AD pose this question on another thread and its a good question.

Whose rights under ADA is beng violated? The HOH interpreter who has the right to work? Or the deaf consumer?
Click to expand...

Under the ADA as currently written, both are protected, and therefore, it could be a violation of the rights of both. An HOH terp definately has the right to work without thread of discrimination based on their HOH status, only if they are capable of performing all of the requirements of the job with or without accommodation. That holds true for all disabilities.
 
That would make for a very sticky situation!
 
At the same time, the consumer has the right to an interpreter who is qualified (and certified) with the assurance that the job can be performed.
 
jillio said:
Under the ADA as currently written, both are protected, and therefore, it could be a violation of the rights of both. An HOH terp definately has the right to work without thread of discrimination based on their HOH status, only if they are capable of performing all of the requirements of the job with or without accommodation. That holds true for all disabilities.
Click to expand...

New question: How do we know if they can perform the job? Certification is usually granted in a testing environment (not based on real life observations of how the interpreters do in various settings).
 
And just because one is certified doesn't necessairly mean they are qualified and vice versa......
 
deafbajagal said:
At the same time, the consumer has the right to an interpreter who is qualified (and certified) with the assurance that the job can be performed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And part of qualified would being able to perform the essential functions of the job. I think that is the wording a case like that would be decided on. If the HOH terp can perform all of the essential functions of the job, then they would fall into the "qualified" category, and the deaf individual's rights would not be violated at that point. But I am just brainstorming here based on my experience of the way the ADA is often interpreted. It would be interesting to see such a case decided.
 
deafbajagal said:
New question: How do we know if they can perform the job? Certification is usually granted in a testing environment (not based on real life observations of how the interpreters do in various settings).
Click to expand...

I would say observation under internship by a certified, qualified terp. It would provide information on their skills in real life situations. Quite frankly, I think a period of internship would be a good idea for all terps coming into the field.
 
SERIOUSLY?

I can't believe this would ever come up in any reality that I participate in routinely.
 
What's been stated is correct. If an interpreter can perform the essential duties of his/her job with or without an accommodation (hearing aids are not considered an accommodation, they are personal use items) then s/he has the right to do the job without discrimination on the basis of his/her "disability."

Personally, my hearing aids are much like my contacts with regards to how I use them. Both my contacts and my hearing aids move my impaired senses to within normal limits.

And since we're asking "hypothetical" questions, why would you have doubts about a HOH interpreter but not one who wears eyeglasses? Acute vision is important if an interpreter is going to be able to understand a deaf person signing. But the doubt has been cast on HOH interpreters and not visually impaired interpreters.

I'll take internalized self-hatred for $500, Alex.
 
HoHGuyOhio said:
What's been stated is correct. If an interpreter can perform the essential duties of his/her job with or without an accommodation (hearing aids are not considered an accommodation, they are personal use items) then s/he has the right to do the job without discrimination on the basis of his/her "disability."
Click to expand...

Is that an actual statement in disability law? I don't know so that's why I am asking -- I'm not being sarcastic here. I just have never thought of my hearing aids as a personal-use item, but as an accommodation for my hearing loss.
 
AlleyCat said:
Is that an actual statement in disability law? I don't know so that's why I am asking -- I'm not being sarcastic here. I just have never thought of my hearing aids as a personal-use item, but as an accommodation for my hearing loss.
Click to expand...
My take on it is that hearing aids are personal property, not something an employer or other entity does to accommodate you. Providing a ramp, hiring interpreters, offering a space for a service dog to potty, getting a magnifying machine or dictation software...those are accommodations, things they do. Allowing you to wear hearing aids might be considered an accommodation, but the hearing aids themselves seem like they would indeed be a personal item.
 
HoHGuyOhio said:
What's been stated is correct. If an interpreter can perform the essential duties of his/her job with or without an accommodation (hearing aids are not considered an accommodation, they are personal use items) then s/he has the right to do the job without discrimination on the basis of his/her "disability."

Personally, my hearing aids are much like my contacts with regards to how I use them. Both my contacts and my hearing aids move my impaired senses to within normal limits.

And since we're asking "hypothetical" questions, why would you have doubts about a HOH interpreter but not one who wears eyeglasses? Acute vision is important if an interpreter is going to be able to understand a deaf person signing. But the doubt has been cast on HOH interpreters and not visually impaired interpreters.
I'll take internalized self-hatred for $500, Alex.
Click to expand...

That's a very valid question.
 
AlleyCat said:
Is that an actual statement in disability law? I don't know so that's why I am asking -- I'm not being sarcastic here. I just have never thought of my hearing aids as a personal-use item, but as an accommodation for my hearing loss.
Click to expand...

They would be an accommodation only if the business, school, organization, etc. with which you are communicating, employed, or attending for educational purposes provided such for you in order for you to perform essential functions in that environment.
 
Thanks, guys. I did need that explanation to understand the difference between accommodation and personal use. So when one of my former employers purchased a TTY for me at work many years ago, they were providing me with an accommodation. That's a good way for me to understand it.
 
AlleyCat said:
Thanks, guys. I did need that explanation to understand the difference between accommodation and personal use. So when one of my former employers purchased a TTY for me at work many years ago, they were providing me with an accommodation. That's a good way for me to understand it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You have it down pat now.
 
HoHGuyOhio said:
What's been stated is correct. If an interpreter can perform the essential duties of his/her job with or without an accommodation (hearing aids are not considered an accommodation, they are personal use items) then s/he has the right to do the job without discrimination on the basis of his/her "disability."

Personally, my hearing aids are much like my contacts with regards to how I use them. Both my contacts and my hearing aids move my impaired senses to within normal limits.

And since we're asking "hypothetical" questions, why would you have doubts about a HOH interpreter but not one who wears eyeglasses? Acute vision is important if an interpreter is going to be able to understand a deaf person signing. But the doubt has been cast on HOH interpreters and not visually impaired interpreters.

I'll take internalized self-hatred for $500, Alex.
Click to expand...

What is personal property of the said individual, Alex? :)

Etoile said:
My take on it is that hearing aids are personal property, not something an employer or other entity does to accommodate you. Providing a ramp, hiring interpreters, offering a space for a service dog to potty, getting a magnifying machine or dictation software...those are accommodations, things they do. Allowing you to wear hearing aids might be considered an accommodation, but the hearing aids themselves seem like they would indeed be a personal item.
Click to expand...

HA's and eyeglasses would be considered personal property and accomodations even though they are accomodating the individual to bring their senses back within normal range.

Absolutely. And part of qualified would being able to perform the essential functions of the job. I think that is the wording a case like that would be decided on. If the HOH terp can perform all of the essential functions of the job, then they would fall into the "qualified" category, and the deaf individual's rights would not be violated at that point. But I am just brainstorming here based on my experience of the way the ADA is often interpreted. It would be interesting to see such a case decided.
Click to expand...

It would beinteresting to see how the comes about. I'm sure it will only be a matter of time.

No.....not me. :lol:
 
Back
Top