ILNews

IBA: Providing Services to the Deaf

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Twenty years ago the United States took a giant leap forward in providing access for all persons regardless of ability with passage of The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Even though the ADA has been in place for these many years questions still remain about what, if any, accommodations attorneys must make to provide services to disabled persons. This is particularly true when it comes to the deaf. In addition to prohibiting direct discrimination, the ADA requires that attorneys provide auxiliary aids or services necessary to ensure effective communication with clients who are deaf.

Sign language interpreters are considered an auxiliary aid or service. Generally, the ADA requires attorneys to provide and pay for qualified sign language interpreters for deaf clients when necessary to provide effective communication.

The Disability Law & Advocacy Center of Tennessee has assembled a helpful list of frequently asked questions to assist attorneys.

Question: Can an attorney refuse to serve an individual simply because that individual is deaf?

Answer: No. Under the ADA, attorneys cannot refuse to serve someone solely due to disability. So, for example, it would be unlawful discrimination for an attorney who practices personal injury law to refuse to meet with an individual who has been injured in an accident simply because that client is deaf.

Question: Does an attorney have to provide services to deaf individuals beyond the services provided to other individuals?

Answer: No. Attorneys are not required to fundamentally alter the services they provide in order to serve individuals with disabilities. So, an attorney who only practices bankruptcy law would not be required to meet with a deaf individual to discuss that individual’s housing discrimination issue.

Question: When is an attorney generally required to provide a sign language interpreter to a client or potential client who is deaf?

Answer: When the client or potential client asks for a sign language interpreter in order to participate in a meeting with the attorney.

Question: Is an attorney required to provide a sign language interpreter if the client does not ask for one?

Answer: Generally, no. However, it may be helpful for an attorney to offer to provide a sign language interpreter or other auxiliary aid/service if he or she is having difficulty communicating with a deaf client. Keep in mind that it is generally to the advantage of both the attorney and the client to ensure that communication is clear.

Question: Are there any situations in which an attorney can refuse to provide a sign language interpreter to a deaf client?

Answer: Yes. The ADA permits attorneys to offer alternate auxiliary aids/services IF those will meet the client’s need. For example, some individuals who are deaf might be able to communicate by computer assisted real time translation (CART). If so, it would be OK for an attorney to offer CART as an alternative to a sign language interpreter. As a practical matter, please keep in mind that because American sign language (ASL) or other manual communication is generally the first language of most people who are deaf, many deaf individuals are not proficient in reading written English and may only be able to effectively engage in complex communications through use of a sign language interpreter.

In addition, the ADA does not require attorneys to provide auxiliary aids or services if doing so would constitute an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of their services. However, these standards are very difficult to meet. Determining whether providing a particular auxiliary aid or service constitutes an undue financial or administrative burden should be evaluated by looking at the overall resources of the medical provider. The fact that the cost of providing an auxiliary aid or service to one client may be more than the fees paid by that client to the attorney is not a sufficient reason for an attorney to refuse to provide an auxiliary aid or service. Generally, sign language interpreters and other auxiliary aids/services needed by people with disabilities will not constitute an undue financial or administrative burden or fundamentally alter the nature of the attorney’s program.

Question: What is a qualified sign language interpreter?

Answer: A qualified sign language interpreter is an interpreter who can translate sign language into speech and speech into sign language in order to provide effective communication. It is generally not appropriate for family members or friends to interpret for a person who is deaf.

Question: What is effective communication?

Answer: Providing effective communication to someone who is deaf means providing communication that is just as effective as communication to others who are not deaf.

Question: Are there any tax incentives available to help attorneys provide sign language interpreters to deaf clients?

Answer: Yes. Depending on the specifics of their financial situations, attorneys who spend money in order to meet the needs of people with disabilities may be eligible for a tax credit or deduction. For more information that you can discuss with your financial advisor, please see “Tax Incentives Packet on the Americans with Disabilities Act” available from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on-line at www.ada.gov or by calling 1- 800-514-0301.

Question: Where can attorneys obtain sign language interpreters?

Answer: In Indianapolis, attorneys may contact Easter Seals Crossroads Rehabilitation Center at 317-479-3240.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT