Is there a law that prohibits it?

CrazyPaul said:
I agree with rolling7 all the way because it makes alot of sense.

I am sorry for not giving more details earlier. I was not talking about daily communications at work. My supervisor wrote to me about a serious issue between me and one of my co-workers and I answered her question by writing and then she kept that note as an evidence. I realized that it's my mistake and I should refuse to talk to her in the first place until an interpreter and union rep are present. The federal law requires an employer to provide an interpreter for deaf employees at official discussions/meetings. The Postal Service must accept a request for an union steward. That's a fact.

Rolling7 is 100% right about deaf workers not having to use their notepad, whiteboard, pen, etc to communicate with supervisors at work. The employer has to provide those things. That's a fact.

Rolling7, I know about EEO but I heard that they don't usually do a good job.

Ok, everyone, many thanks for trying to help. I really appreciate it. Now I know that we don't have a law to protect that right. I learned my lesson so next time I will be a smartass.
Click to expand...

Regarding your supervisor keeping your notes as evidence...it seems to me that such a meeting that has the apparent sole purpose of possibly taking disciplinary action toward yourself or the employee you were having a serious issue with calls for the automatic inclusion of a union rep in this process because the issue has risen to a level seriously enough......not to mention an interpreter for you.......labor laws....
 
Reba said:
For your sake, I hope so. It's your paycheck, not mine.

I hope it works out for you. :)
Click to expand...

What I mean by that, like rolling7 said, is "know my rights and use them". I am not crazy, even though my username says it.
 
CrazyPaul said:
I agree with rolling7 all the way because it makes alot of sense.

I am sorry for not giving more details earlier. I was not talking about daily communications at work. My supervisor wrote to me about a serious issue between me and one of my co-workers and I answered her question by writing and then she kept that note as an evidence. I realized that it's my mistake and I should refuse to talk to her in the first place until an interpreter and union rep are present. The federal law requires an employer to provide an interpreter for deaf employees at official discussions/meetings. The Postal Service must accept a request for an union steward. That's a fact.

Rolling7 is 100% right about deaf workers not having to use their notepad, whiteboard, pen, etc to communicate with supervisors at work. The employer has to provide those things. That's a fact.

Rolling7, I know about EEO but I heard that they don't usually do a good job.

Ok, everyone, many thanks for trying to help. I really appreciate it. Now I know that we don't have a law to protect that right. I learned my lesson so next time I will be a smartass.
Click to expand...

Actually, federal law does not require an employer to provide a terp. That is a common misperception. All they are required to provide is "reasonable accommodation."

Misperceptions such as this are exactly what I was referring to when I posted re:the ADA.
 
Tousi said:
Regarding your supervisor keeping your notes as evidence...it seems to me that such a meeting that has the apparent sole purpose of possibly taking disciplinary action toward yourself or the employee you were having a serious issue with calls for the automatic inclusion of a union rep in this process because the issue has risen to a level seriously enough......not to mention an interpreter for you.......labor laws....
Click to expand...

If this was a meeting regarding a disciplinary situation, then there has to be a record of the meeting and what exactly was discussed that the employee is generally required to sign off on if it is a hearing employee. The keeping of two way conversation via notes serves the same purpose, as it is in the employees handwriting and indicates understanding of what was being discussed and possible consequences.
 
jillio said:
Actually, federal law does not require an employer to provide a terp. That is a common misperception. All they are required to provide is "reasonable accommodation."

Misperceptions such as this are exactly what I was referring to when I posted re:the ADA.
Click to expand...
Not required by the ADA but required under Federal employer standards, if requested by the Deaf employee. If the employee has stated at any time that he or she wants a terp for all meetings, then that's what he or she will get. If not, there could be trouble for the boss. Getting a terp for all meetings is standard Federal employer CYA practice. They go above and beyond ADA.
 
jillio said:
If this was a meeting regarding a disciplinary situation, then there has to be a record of the meeting and what exactly was discussed that the employee is generally required to sign off on if it is a hearing employee. The keeping of two way conversation via notes serves the same purpose, as it is in the employees handwriting and indicates understanding of what was being discussed and possible consequences.
Click to expand...
If simply keeping notes were enough then it wouldn't be necessary for hearing employees to have union reps present. Since union reps are present at disciplinary meetings for hearing and deaf members, then the rep can even say, "Where's the interpreter? No interpreter, no meeting. Get an interpreter, then we'll meet again."

I've traveled many miles for these kinds of meetings only because it was "required."
 
jillio said:
Actually, federal law does not require an employer to provide a terp. That is a common misperception. All they are required to provide is "reasonable accommodation."

Misperceptions such as this are exactly what I was referring to when I posted re:the ADA.
Click to expand...

Reasonable accommodation means qualified interpreter, closed/open captions, tty, etc to meet deaf people's needs. That's under federal law section 504 for government buildings (including Postal Service, courts, police stations), airports, libraries, colleges, etc.
 
CrazyPaul said:
Reasonable accommodation means qualified interpreter, closed/open captions, tty, etc to meet deaf people's needs. That's under federal law section 504 for government buildings (including Postal Service, courts, police stations), airports, libraries, colleges, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, yeah...who defines what reasonable is?

I have had huge problems with what reasonable means and what others think it means. They may have an entirely different idea of what it can mean regardless if it is effective and works for you.
 
CrazyPaul,

Perhaps your supervisor is keeping your response notes for evidence that she is accomodating you. If you are concerned about breach of privacy or discrimination against you then, use a carbon copy sheet. File your copy, this way you have a copy of everything should any legal issue come up.

You also mention there are several Deaf in your workplace. Your supervisor's attitude may not be directed individually to you personally, (unless she has made discriminating remarks pertaining to your deafness), but perhaps, it is an generalized annoyance that she has to use this method of communication many times over in the course of a day, making it slow and tedious. You could make a constructive suggestion to ease the situation for all involved, Deaf and hearing alike. Besides, you have to face the same people tomorrow and the next day etc.....Truce.
 
Glenn said:
Yeah, yeah...who defines what reasonable is?

I have had huge problems with what reasonable means and what others think it means. They may have an entirely different idea of what it can mean regardless if it is effective and works for you.
Click to expand...

Qualified interpreter to be provided for a deaf person is not unreasonable.
 
I guess most of you, commenters don't understand my situation.

So I am gonna give you two examples.

First example is that when a supervisor talks with a deaf employee about a serious issue by writing, he/she keeps written notes as evidence to be put in file.

Last example is that when a supervisor talks with a hearing employee about a serious issue by verbal, he/she can't keep anything as evidence to be put in file (no tape-recording).

Can't you see the big difference between those two examples? If you can't, that's unbelievable.
 
CrazyPaul said:
I guess most of you, commenters don't understand my situation.

So I am gonna give you two examples.

First example is that when a supervisor talks with a deaf employee about a serious issue by writing, he/she keeps written notes as evidence to be put in file.

Last example is that when a supervisor talks with a hearing employee about a serious issue by verbal, he/she can't keep anything as evidence to be put in file (no tape-recording).

Can't you see the big difference between those two examples? If you can't, that's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

We see the difference and there are those of us who could rectify the situation. Are you still doing the usual routine? THAT is unbelievable.
 
Beowulf said:
Anytime, anywhere? Nawww, that is not reasonable.
Click to expand...

For job interveiws, staff meetings, union meetings, court appearances, etc, yes, that's what federal law section 504 is all about.

If you think I am talking about needing an interpreter for fast food order or something like that, you must be nuts.
 
CrazyPaul said:
For job interveiws, staff meetings, union meetings, court appearances, etc, yes, that's what federal law section 504 is all about.

If you think I am talking about needing an interpreter for fast food order or something like that, you must be nuts.
Click to expand...

Nope, just being reasonable. :)
 
Beowulf said:
We see the difference and there are those of us who could rectify the situation. Are you still doing the usual routine? THAT is unbelievable.
Click to expand...

No, that was my first time in my life. All of other supervisors except my current supervisor respected me and tore up the notes after we talked because they knew it would be unfair to me if they kept the notes. In other words, I didn't receive an equal treatment from my current supervisor.
 
CrazyPaul said:
I guess most of you, commenters don't understand my situation.

So I am gonna give you two examples.

First example is that when a supervisor talks with a deaf employee about a serious issue by writing, he/she keeps written notes as evidence to be put in file.

Last example is that when a supervisor talks with a hearing employee about a serious issue by verbal, he/she can't keep anything as evidence to be put in file (no tape-recording).

Can't you see the big difference between those two examples? If you can't, that's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

I don't even understand what you want from us? Obviously, to our knowledge, there is no law that specifically states that a supervisor cannot keep the notes "as evidence". (Honestly, if you call your notes evidence for something, then you got bigger problems.) So now you're upset about a lack of law for this, but it isn't as if we can change it. There is probably no law just because no one thought about it or abused it enough to make someone to do something about it. So if you wrote something bad to her (which honestly, to me, is the only reason why you're getting your panties in a twist over this) and you want to save your job, looks like you would have to hire a lawyer to look into this.

OR

You and your supervisor simply have an angry relationship, and you simply want to have the last word and have something to show her so that you can say "See? It's illegal. I own you."
 
Daredevel7 said:
I don't even understand what you want from us? Obviously, to our knowledge, there is no law that specifically states that a supervisor cannot keep the notes "as evidence". (Honestly, if you call your notes evidence for something, then you got bigger problems.) So now you're upset about a lack of law for this, but it isn't as if we can change it. There is probably no law just because no one thought about it or abused it enough to make someone to do something about it. So if you wrote something bad to her (which honestly, to me, is the only reason why you're getting your panties in a twist over this) and you want to save your job, looks like you would have to hire a lawyer to look into this.

OR

You and your supervisor simply have a angry relationship, and you simply want to have the last word and have something to show her so that you can say "See? It's illegal. I own you."
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything bad but I still don't like the way it happened. Can you imagine that my hearing co-workers agree with me? They don't like it, either.
 
Back
Top