Levonian
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2003
- Messages
- 3,908
- Reaction score
- 1
Found this on the web site of the Oklahoma Disability Law Center, Inc.
http://www.flash.net/~odlcokc
Oakland, CA—Today (October 6, 1999) in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) and Schneider & McCormac filed a nationwide class action lawsuit of first impression (Lundstrom v. Target) against Target Stores, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation, for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Target discriminates against persons with hearing disabilities by failing to provide the accommodations necessary to ensure effective communication in the workplace.
The ADA requires places of public accommodation, such as retailers or department stores, to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities during the interview process. For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, retailers must provide the necessary accommodations to achieve effective communication between the hearing and deaf persons. For deaf people, interpreters are a necessary accommodation to bridge the communication gap between sign language and English users. Target, however, has exhibited a pattern and practice of refusing to provide interpreters during the job application process which severely disadvantages deaf people’s opportunities to fairly and equally compete for employment. As one of the largest retail stores in the nations, with a annual revenues of over $20 billion, Target can well afford the costs of such accommodations.
The individual named Plaintiff, Gary Lundstrom, represents a state and nationwide class of all persons with hearing disabilities who have been injured in the legal right or are threatened with such injury because of Target’s conduct in establishing and implementing discriminatory policies and practices against deaf and hard of hearing job applicants. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that will force Target into compliance with federal civil rights laws.
Target systematically fails to provide very basic accommodations to deaf and hard of hearing job applicants during the employment application process. Target’s refusal to provide deaf and hard of hearing applicants with sign language interpreters for interviews forces them to communicate with interviewers by writing notes. Target also refuses to provide hearing disabled applicants with interpreters for written job examinations administered by Target. An investigation of Target stores across the nation shows that Target routinely denies deaf job applicants’ requests for interpreters for job interviews. Of ten deaf people across the nation, six were discriminated against by one form or another. For example, three people were told that Target would not provide an interpreter for the job interview. Two other people were told that Target was not currently hiring. However, when hearing persons inquired about job openings at the same stores, they were told that Target was currently hiring and were encouraged to apply. Only one deaf individual was told that Target would provide him with an interpreter and that he would receive a call to schedule an interview. Despite his repeated TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) calls and messages concerning scheduling an interview, Target never returned his messages. The last time he called to follow up on an interview, he was told that Target was already conducting interviews.
The named class representative in this suit is Gary Lundstrom, who is deaf. Mr. Lundstrom states, "Target didn’t even give me a chance. I asked for an interpreter and they said they would give me one. But before the interview, they called me and told me they could not find an interpreter and just told me to come in for the interview anyway. I told Target that I needed an interpreter, but they insisted that I should just interview without one. I decided to go to the interview anyway because I needed a job and I wanted to try. But, without an interpreter at the interview, I was not able to understand what was being said, ask questions easily, understand most of the questions on the test, or talk about my skills."
Rowena Gargalicana, an attorney for the plaintiff, notes: "It is ironic that Target’s web page boasts about the company’s commitment to diversity and about the company’s Diversity Task Force. However, Target’s practice of routinely denying deaf job applicants sign language interpreters during job interviews is proof that Target does not want to hire deaf people."
Plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a national civil rights nonprofit law firm exclusively representing people with disabilities and Schneider & McCormac, a prominent San Francisco civil rights firm.
http://www.flash.net/~odlcokc
Oakland, CA—Today (October 6, 1999) in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, Disability Rights Advocates (DRA) and Schneider & McCormac filed a nationwide class action lawsuit of first impression (Lundstrom v. Target) against Target Stores, a division of Dayton Hudson Corporation, for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Target discriminates against persons with hearing disabilities by failing to provide the accommodations necessary to ensure effective communication in the workplace.
The ADA requires places of public accommodation, such as retailers or department stores, to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities during the interview process. For people who are deaf or hard of hearing, retailers must provide the necessary accommodations to achieve effective communication between the hearing and deaf persons. For deaf people, interpreters are a necessary accommodation to bridge the communication gap between sign language and English users. Target, however, has exhibited a pattern and practice of refusing to provide interpreters during the job application process which severely disadvantages deaf people’s opportunities to fairly and equally compete for employment. As one of the largest retail stores in the nations, with a annual revenues of over $20 billion, Target can well afford the costs of such accommodations.
The individual named Plaintiff, Gary Lundstrom, represents a state and nationwide class of all persons with hearing disabilities who have been injured in the legal right or are threatened with such injury because of Target’s conduct in establishing and implementing discriminatory policies and practices against deaf and hard of hearing job applicants. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief that will force Target into compliance with federal civil rights laws.
Target systematically fails to provide very basic accommodations to deaf and hard of hearing job applicants during the employment application process. Target’s refusal to provide deaf and hard of hearing applicants with sign language interpreters for interviews forces them to communicate with interviewers by writing notes. Target also refuses to provide hearing disabled applicants with interpreters for written job examinations administered by Target. An investigation of Target stores across the nation shows that Target routinely denies deaf job applicants’ requests for interpreters for job interviews. Of ten deaf people across the nation, six were discriminated against by one form or another. For example, three people were told that Target would not provide an interpreter for the job interview. Two other people were told that Target was not currently hiring. However, when hearing persons inquired about job openings at the same stores, they were told that Target was currently hiring and were encouraged to apply. Only one deaf individual was told that Target would provide him with an interpreter and that he would receive a call to schedule an interview. Despite his repeated TDD (Telecommunication Device for the Deaf) calls and messages concerning scheduling an interview, Target never returned his messages. The last time he called to follow up on an interview, he was told that Target was already conducting interviews.
The named class representative in this suit is Gary Lundstrom, who is deaf. Mr. Lundstrom states, "Target didn’t even give me a chance. I asked for an interpreter and they said they would give me one. But before the interview, they called me and told me they could not find an interpreter and just told me to come in for the interview anyway. I told Target that I needed an interpreter, but they insisted that I should just interview without one. I decided to go to the interview anyway because I needed a job and I wanted to try. But, without an interpreter at the interview, I was not able to understand what was being said, ask questions easily, understand most of the questions on the test, or talk about my skills."
Rowena Gargalicana, an attorney for the plaintiff, notes: "It is ironic that Target’s web page boasts about the company’s commitment to diversity and about the company’s Diversity Task Force. However, Target’s practice of routinely denying deaf job applicants sign language interpreters during job interviews is proof that Target does not want to hire deaf people."
Plaintiffs are represented by Disability Rights Advocates, a national civil rights nonprofit law firm exclusively representing people with disabilities and Schneider & McCormac, a prominent San Francisco civil rights firm.
There were 60 questionnaires, I would say 20 out of 60 are good questionnaire that I don't mind to answer.