Nesmuth

The US Department Of Justice Will Propose New Rules Relating To The Americans With Disabilities Act
Proposed new rules to the Americans With Disabilities Act due this summer should probably be focused on clarifying who counts as disabled under the law and getting businesses and government entities to comply, rather than adding new requirements.

The U.S. Department of Justice will propose new rules related to the act sometime in the next few months.

Proposed requirements being considered include:

Visible workplace alarms, which would allow deaf and hard-of-hearing employees to be made aware of an emergency situation.

TTY, or text telephone, equipment in all buildings with four or more public telephones.

There was no mention of VRS, Closed Captioning, and Interpreters.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Pacman

Blah, ADA is just joking.

__________________







Oh damn, don't mess with me

VamPyroX

VRS, captioning, and interpreters require someone else in between... which costs more money. That should be best left to those who ask for it, not automatically included in everything.

__________________

Check out my city... CLICK HERE!
(If you already visited yesterday, visit again today!)

diehardbiker

I agreed, and I think ADA just make lives worse for Deafies.

Pacman

ADA is cause more companies to make more fears to hire deaf people, even worse than no ADA law in pre-1990 and make more less to hire more handicapped employees.

I told some managers and co-workers that I don't support ADA, period but they understand.

Only problem that deaf isn't disability, also many people called like that.

If I get issue with job then I will file a complaint at EEOC office.

__________________







Oh damn, don't mess with me

Pacman

I remember about long time ago, when Sam Walton was here and Wal-fart is used to have numerous of deaf employees in 80's but it went down after ADA was passed and alot worse after Sam Walton was passed away in 1992. Wal-fart is used to have best consumer service in during 70's and 80's.

__________________







Oh damn, don't mess with me

Tousi

The ADA is a WELL-INTENTIONED law but in reality it is often a double-edged sword.

VamPyroX

Yeah, the problem is that deaf people abuse it.

__________________

Check out my city... CLICK HERE!
(If you already visited yesterday, visit again today!)

Tousi

And so do a lot of hearing employers, Vampy....and that's why I say it's a double-edged sword....I have mixed feelings about it......

diehardbiker

Seen enough of it!

CCfan

That sucks!

Here's my idea, it would may be working better within it: I need to win lottery and put a money to contribute to congress/senate for a better law than ADA within least $10 million to U.S. government for more closed-captioning, VRS, interpreters, must hire deaf and hard-of-hearing people. I need to make more
money from my work, and buy a lottery for give a money to them for
deaf rights law! I know winning lottery is very rare.
Oh well, but I will try make it less than million.

__________________
I am closed captioning fan.

Nesmuth

Nice ! However I'd use the money for enforcement as in hiring a gang of attorneys to do a nationwide shakedown of ADA violators.

Richard

not bad for my 3000th post

vrsterp

Right. Equal access is still protected. If an accomodation isn't enough for the deaf employee to have equal access then they have a right to one of the above, i.e. a staff meeting; to have equal access they need an interpreter. For phone calls, VRS may be preferred but sadly TTYs are "sufficient/good enough," which is all they require.

jillio

I would say the majority of the abuses come from hearing employers. The ADA has it problems, but without it, there is no recourse when civil rights are violated. Therefore, I see it as a necessary evil.

jillio

Good idea. Something we can agree on, Nesmuth!

Tousi

Ah, sounds good but therein lies the problem and this is what I meant earlier about the double-edged sword. If what you say comes to pass (let's just say), what I think happens next and it is already happening, is that employers will use any means not to hire deaf people because of the cost. It's a helluva raw deal but I think that's the reality. Anybody got ideas?

jillio

I understand exactly what you are saying, and do agree. However, without the accommodations guaranteed by the ADA, they will refuse to hire because they don't have the accommodations. Connundrum, isn't it?

Tousi

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.

webexplorer

I think so. It's because companies refused to hire deaf people because of the ADA requirement. It has nothing to do with discrimination. It is all about too expensive things that they hate to pay them. If a ramp is demanding, it would cost approx. 4 thousand dollars. If someone is willing to make one, it would be a cheaper to buy the same materials.

navyman

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.

pek1

NO! Hearies abuse it! They are quick to check into the law to see if they have to provide services.

No wonder I am looking to go to law school! A deaf person like you will kiss off all our rights and I REFUSE
REFUSE
REFUSE to allow a bastard hearie tell me what I need. You don't like my hearing dog, then get out of my way and go back to selling pencils!

__________________
Pete

DeafSCUBA98

at least my wal-mart have TTY pay phone, i'm starting to notice more retail store having a tty pay-phone

__________________


Nucleus Freedom 04/18/05
activiated 05/16/05