Deaf Rights Case

CrazyPaul -

To answer your question. In my opinion any hearing people who have worked with the deaf should have known that.
 
Better research on law before you say so. You will be surprise what is being said in the law book.

In fact most companies do what is called "At will" which technically benefit both ways, meaning company can terminate employee without any explanation, and at the same time, employees holds same right by quit without any explanation.

CrazyPaul said:
Oh well, an employer must be specific when an employee is "let go". The fancy term is usually "termination" or "removal". The employer should give a reason for termination/removal such as poor attendance, poor job performance, no longer needed or zero tolerance (violence, sexual harassment, intoxication, etc). If the employer doesn't give any of those reasons, obviously it's an act of discrimination (fat, old, handicapped, race, gay/lesbian, etc).

I understand that small businesses don't work the same way as big businesses. For example, my employer, USPS sends a letter of removal to an employee for poor attendance instead of a supervisor talking to the employee face to face. The letter always includes a reason for removal.
Click to expand...
 
a l i v e said:
Allow me to expand on my post.

You can gather in this thread alone that Grummer, Brotheryellow, caz, and diehardbiker express similar feelings about the justice system. That feeling, where they feel that the justice system favors the companies, not the little man, is valid. There has been hundred of thousands discriminating issues in the workforce for the deaf. How many do we actually see reach fruition? Just a handful.

For a hearing person, regardless of his/her employment or relationship with the deaf community, to come in here and say these things ...


... only means they are not seeing things in the deaf perspective. They have not entirely experienced our feelings in the world of employment. They have never faced the issues personally. They may see it from an outside perspective, but to understand it like a victim it takes an actual personal experience. That is where the 4 people in this thread share the same feelings.

It takes BLATANT, OBVIOUS, and REPETITIVE discrimination for something to actually happen in the justice system. Otherwise it's a losing case for 99.95% of the population, and we know it. That's why you see deaf people expressing their anger about it.

When an outsider (hearing person to the deaf community, white person to a black community, straight person to a gay community, etc) comes in and say "oh, we have the justice system, use it" it's offensive because the community is saying "We have tried, and it's not working, so we're here trying to find a better way to reach our goals."

Do you understand where I am coming from now?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get it. They know we have ADA laws but like DHB said, a lawyer won't take a case without proof (hearsay is not a proof). That's THE problem. That sucks.

IMO, ADA law should be modified to allow us to video-record any event such as job interviews or termination as proof, in case of an act of discrimination (no video = no evidence).
 
a l i v e said:
I see two opposing views on this topic, Reba. One from the hearing persons perspective, the other deaf.

Laws are in place. Yet most of deaf community doesn't see "justice being served" in discrimination cases.

Your statement came across as a bit polarizing in my perspective.
Click to expand...
My perspective is that there are laws in place but that they aren't being enforced as they should be. I don't see how getting rid of ADA laws would make the situation any better. That would simply let those who discriminate against Deaf people off the hook.

People on both sides need to know the laws (many people don't know what's covered by the ADA).

Sadly, the Justice Department doesn't do enough to enforce them. In fact, having to go thru the DOJ to get things done is a hindrance. People with complaints should be able to get local, more immediate help when they have a case.
 
I would never tell someone, "oh, we have the justice system, use it."

It's usually the hearing business owner, hearing doctor, hearing instructor, hearing government agent, etc., that gets irritated with me for "taking the Deaf side."

I realize that our laws are not adequate, nor are they enforced as they should be, and the workplace is not Deaf-friendly, to say the least. However, I don't see how tossing out the laws and legal system would make things better. But I'm willing to learn, and I apologize for the way I came across.

That being said, I'm OK with letting go; time for me to move on.
 
Reba -

I hope you realize I wasn't taking it personally. And apologize for being a bit harsh.

When I read Grummer saying laws exist to keep the rich happy. He's partially right. It favors the wealthy, corporations, companies, etc. I didn't see it as "go ahead and toss the laws out" especially when he stated earlier in the thread that we needed more work on our discrimination laws.

I'm glad that you chimed in with your take on things. I see things more clearer now.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Yeah, I get it. They know we have ADA laws but like DHB said, a lawyer won't take a case without proof (hearsay is not a proof). That's THE problem. That sucks.

IMO, ADA law should be modified to allow us to video-record any event such as job interviews or termination as proof, in case of an act of discrimination (no video = no evidence).
Click to expand...

like this idea.....hell 'use the video' for remote interpreting as an 'excuse' lol:giggle:
 
My estranged wife filed a complaint to EEO since her employer, EDD (under the state of Calif) refused to provide an ASL interpreter for weekly staff meetings she attended which is obviously an act of discrimination. The outcome is that EEO didn't find anything wrong so the case's closed. What the hell is going on in this world? I think she's hiring a lawyer to file a lawsuit for a violation of ADA law. What's wrong with EEO? What a shame!
 
a l i v e said:
I see two opposing views on this topic, Reba. One from the hearing persons perspective, the other deaf.

Laws are in place. Yet most of deaf community doesn't see "justice being served" in discrimination cases.

Your statement came across as a bit polarizing in my perspective.
Click to expand...

And anyone facing discrimination in the work force does see justice because "they can hear?" Two of my coworkers were "retired" this year because they were too old to work, in the agency's opinion. It had nothing to do with their work performance but still, they lost their job, they were threatened by management, and forced to resign. They could hear so why didn't a lawyer take their case? They both went to a lawyer and were told "nothing could be proven." What about a young woman that gets pregnant and suddenly finds her hours cut, or a potential job promotion not available to her now that's she's starting a family....does she have an edge because she can hear? Justice isn't a hearing issue - if there's any disparity it's more between the haves and the have nots. People without money are stuck dealing with EEO at their office and generally hit one wall after another. Their ability to hear or not has nothing to do with it.

Laura
 
Back
Top