It sure is, Jillio; I was hoping people here smarter than I would/could come up with something, all the while keeping this well-intentioned law intact.
I think some of the key problems with the ADA language is its ambiguity on the following terms:
* The word "reasonable" in reasonable accommodation. Obviously, this word is subject to various interpretations. A good example is "qualified" for qualified interpreter. Who determines whether an interpreter is qualified or not? Apparently, many places think the Deaf person does not have that right!
* The word "undue" in undue hardship
* The concept of "cost" and quantifying minimum thresholds by which the ADA requires a business/employer to comply. This is already done for closed captioning requirements where the revenue threshold of the video distributor is a determining factor as to whether or not closed captioning rules apply.
The ambiguous semantics only serve to frustrate both sides, one being forced to interpret their legal obligations, the other feelling obligated to justify their requests without sufficient/clear statutory language to back it up. This sometimes ends up forcing those who insist on their rightful accommodations to use painful and expensive due process.
What would help tremendously is for the Federal Government to set up a separate ADA/Accommodations Board staffed by seasonsed and experienced persons from each field (and subfields) of disability. It could be modeled after the Section 508 Access Board responsible for setting up specific standards that define the applicability of Section 255 of the Telecom Act of 1996 which essentially mandates manufacturers to design and produce telecom products that are capable of meeting a wide range of disabilities.
Such a board of experts then could put into writing the specific types of accommodations which are normally considered "reasonable" for each disability category. For example, it could issue very specific guidance to employers and educators about the myriad of technologies, services, and other aids that are considered reasonable for enabling a Deaf student/employee to be properly and EFFECTIVELY accommodated in order to have an EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to perform. It could differentiate between a Deaf ASL person (ex. ASL interpreter/VRS) from an Oral/mainstreamed Deaf person (ex. CART/TTY/CAPTEL), both which frequently have quite different communciation needs/requirements, and suggest the possible range of appropriate accommodations.
This is the kind of information that is VERY lacking in current ADA/DOJ policies/documentation. If such information existed, it would alleviate a lot of the problems we see today. For example, when I asked my employer for VRS access, their first reaction was that the law only required them to provide text relay. Despite my assertions on the obvious (to me anyway) limitations of text relay, they were not convinced at first simply because there was no law, guidance, policy language that spoke to VRS as a normal reasonable accommodation for Deaf persons. It wasn't until after I showed them a demo of VRS that they could see why VRS would be so much more effective than the the equivalent of a morse-code machine to the Deaf community.
EEOC does issue some guidance which provides some clarifications to employers/federal agencies on certain disabilities, but they often come up short. Here's an example of one for
Deaf HoH guidance.
I know winning lottery is very rare.