DZ sued to provide interpreter for deaf jumper

[scottbre 0]

I'm not real brushed up on my ADA research but my understanding is that it applies more to employee/employer relationships. I doubt that this deaf lady will win. However, it does still suck that she is making the DZ spend money to defend the lawsuit.

"Your mother's full of stupidjuice!"
My Art Project

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I work for a branch of Delta Dental

I hope working for them isn't as annoying as trying to get them to cover expenses.

[SBS 0]

I wonder about those dropzones close by the border, like in El Paso, San Marcos, SPI, Eloy, Perris... will they be sued because they don't have Spanish-language Tandem and AFF courses?

----------------

Spanish speakers would have no grounds for a suit like this, because they are not protected under the ADA like the deaf, blind, etc. Although sign is a language, it is not a choice, it is something that is forced based on a person's disability. They would say that a spanish speaking person chooses not to learn english, therefore, need not be catered to. The deaf, though, they would say, have been forced into this lifestyle, and if we have any sort of compassion, then we would do everything in our power to help them to lead a normal life.

What's worse, is that we do see things like this creeping into our systems...like in schools with ESL classes, etc. Not that they are horrible bad things, but it is a place where people are fighting for their "rights" based on a language, and nothing more.

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[jfields 0]

Quote

And lastly, if 16 of them were willing to pay an extra $25, then the cost of the interpreter ($400) would have been covered, and at very little cost per person. But perhaps that's a tad too personally responsible and reasonable?

To play the devil's advocate, why bother with things like... maternity leave, workman's compensation, wheelchair ramps, braille voting ballots, etc.?

[sarcasm] Shouldn't those various people all just deal with their (permanent or temporary) disabilities at their own bother and expense? I mean, who cares if blind people can't vote? If you get pregnant and take off work, why should your company pay for that? And if you can't get your wheelchair over that big curb, screw it, you didn't need to go there anyway. Injured on the job, tough shit. Why did you get hurt? [/sarcasm]

We have enacted laws for the "common good". The woman that is suing is being annoying as hell. No dispute there. But rather than discussing why she or the deaf group should have paid out of their pocket, lets ponder why the DZ isn't obeying the law. They are required to provide the interpreter, if someone is stubborn enough to demand one. It is a cost of doing business. If there is a problem with that, fix the law or don't be a business.

Who knows what else went on in this situation. She had jumped there before, but maybe someone at the DZ copped an attitude this time. If people were hard-nosed about denying you something to which you were legally entitled, wouldn't you respond with a bit of attitude yourself?

For this thing to end up in court means that both sides were already a bit unreasonable. Otherwise, they would have worked together to figure something else out. I'm not putting blame on either side alone. She and the DZ both made mistakes.

[hohonukai 0]

Quote

I hope working for them isn't as annoying as trying to get them to cover expenses.

lmao!!! Unfortunately, I posted that wrong, I work for a company that is a member of Delta Dental...so I guess that's even lower on the ladder! hehehe. But I hear ya, trying to get them to cover expenses is like pulling teeth!! (bah-dum-tih)

[SBS 0]

They are required to provide the interpreter, if someone is stubborn enough to demand one.

--------------

A) I agree that they shouldn't have to pay for an interpreter themselves... (the deaf people, that is)

B) I agree that she is being annoying as hell, and that she is wrong to make the demands that she has...

C) Are they, in fact, required to provide an interpreter, or are they required to make it as accessible to people with disabilities as it is to those without? By providing it in written form, I believe that they have done just that, made it accessible to her. If it was really that much of a problem, it seems to me that it would have come up before her 3rd tandem.

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[diverdriver 5]

Those things you pointed out are necessary to everyone's life. Skydiving is NOT necessary to everyone's life. I don't see how they are responsible. I feel they should charge her the cost of the Tandem plus the interpretor if she demands it. She can read. She's made 3 jumps already. Must have been good enough so far.

Chris

[goose491 0]

Quote

and if we have any sort of compassion, then we would do everything in our power to help them to lead a normal life.

I Agree but where do you draw the line? This person is obviously asking the company to incur an unnessessary cost. She has made 3 skydives without having to pay $400.00 for an interpretor... Normal life yes... undeserved special exceptions no!
Let's be real, deaf people can be jerks too

As it has already been brought up, I'm sure that among the 16 people, they could find someone who act as translator or they could chip in for a one if they insisted but the dropzone should not be made to suffer just because she feels they should go out of their way to make her experience seem more special than the others... Likely, she just wants to be -what's the sign for..- "the shit" in front of the others in her group

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Yes, it sucks that she may have to shell out the money for an interpreter given that it's not her fault she's deaf. But it's not the DZ's fault either. Why should they be punished. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to increase the price if there's an additional cost to them. Maybe limit them from adding a profit margin onto it, but why should their profit be cut into? I'm sure they didn't factor hiring interpreters into the pricing model for their business. And if the government wants to mandate that interpreters be available, then the government should foot the bill. Yes, that would be our tax money, but isn't that what we pay taxes for?

[jfields 0]

Quote

Are they, in fact, required to provide an interpreter, or are they required to make it as accessible to people with disabilities as it is to those without?

Therein lies the issue. I know the generalities, but not the exact wording of the law. They could probably argue that a set of written instructions does not qualify as equal accessibility, whether an interpreter is officially required or not. What if they have questions that aren't answered by the pre-printed instructions? Is their version of the typical tandem video subtitled? How will they communicate during the suit-up process and in any mock-up, if they do that? What about the advice from the specific instructor that isn't covered in the general info, or something they want to share with a student's specific needs?

Regardless of the whole legal issue, it is sad that a group of people wanting to jump and a dropzone wanting to provide the service got off to such a bad start together.

[quade 4]

Agreed.

However . . . you said it yourself.

Quote

Especially with the statements made by the lady in the interview...we're not talking about someone who is uneducated, she knows how to read and write...it wasn't a matter of what she could and could not do...

Which is exactly why I think she and her attorney are doing this as a test case.

ADA is a very wacky law that requires very wacky things that most businesses would never consider if it were not the law. Generally speaking a business just doesn't spend that kind of cash for such a small part of the market segment, but since it's the LAW, obviously ya gotta do it. I can see both sides of the ADA, but it can take some pretty deep pockets to accomodate all of the different types of things that can come up. You wouldn't believe half the ADA code compliance issues my Company has to deal with.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[WFFC 1]

Quote

[rant] This is such horse shit.[/rant]

I agree. On the other hand, if an interpreter was requested, I see that as an additional cost that is acceptable to pass on to the customer who requested the additional service.

Bluez~~~

Michael
Webmaster

Michael@Freefall.com

-----
~~~Michael

[billvon 2,991]

>To play the devil's advocate, why bother with things like... maternity
> leave, workman's compensation, wheelchair ramps, braille voting
> ballots, etc.?

Because they allow disabled people to live in the world more easily, and few people can live easily if they are required to give birth at work, if they can't physically reach food stores, bathrooms etc. In addition, there are things that _must_ be accessible to all, like voting.

Skydiving is _not_ a requirement for modern life. Deaf people can't get a pilot's license, or work phones at a fundraiser, or be astronauts. Fortunately, people are not too hampered by not being able to do these things, and there are clever alternatives (i.e. working a teletype at a fundraiser) that they can do. Skydiving is no different. If they can do it, great. If their lack of hearing prevents them from doing it, then hey, there's always the tunnel.

What's really odd is that a) I know plenty of deaf skydivers who do not/did not need interpreters and b) these people don't seem "kept out of skydiving" since they did manage to jump already.

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . if an interpreter was requested, I see that as an additional cost that is acceptable to pass on to the customer who requested the additional service.

Unfortunately, that's not how the law works. The Company can not pass the cost on to the one customer. It has to become a cost of doing business and therefore gets passed on to everyone.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[skydiverbrian 0]

This is what happens when skydiving becomes more available to the "general public". We've always felt a little different from the rest of "society" -- here's proof. If we have a problem, we just take care of it. If someone in the "general public" has a problem, they run into court to tell a judge how they've been victimized.

In a world full of people, only some want to fly... isn't that crazy! --Seal

[diverdriver 5]

Ummm....maybe my words weren't clear. I'm in favor of the DZ winning this battle. I think they should just pass the cost on to her if she demands an interpretor. Was that better?

Chris

[quade 4]

Quote

Deaf people can't get a pilot's license, . . .

Actually, they can. They'll have certain restrictions placed on it, but they can get FAA Private Pilot Certificates.

See http://www.deafpilots.com/

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jessica 0]

Quote

They are required to provide the interpreter, if someone is stubborn enough to demand one. It is a cost of doing business.

Mmmmm no. I don't think so anyway.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pubs/ada.txt

Take a look at sections 301 and 302. I think providing printed instructions is more than adaquate. The complainant herself set the precedent when she made tandems with no interpreter.

Anyway, though, 16 tandems is a big pile of income for any DZ and maybe they just should have shelled out the dough for the interpreter and avoided this mess. I hate to see any skydiving operation mired in any legal bog.

Skydiving is for cool people only

[PhillyKev 0]

Wasn't replying specifically to you, Chris, just the thread in general. You just happened to have the last post when I hit reply.

[christoofar 0]

Quote

I'm not real brushed up on my ADA research but my understanding is that it applies more to employee/employer relationships. I doubt that this deaf lady will win. However, it does still suck that she is making the DZ spend money to defend the lawsuit.

The client I am working for in TX is a medical equipment company, they deal specifically with ADA as well as HIPPA (Healthcare Industry Privacy Protection Act). They sell those power scooters that you see the elderly and the indigent scootin' around on.

ADA specifically deals with *access* to public places and places of commerce (which includes a skydiving business), and requires developers to include access in all aspects of building design and retrofit. This is where most ADA litigation comes into play.

A classic example of this kind of litigation is with the owners of a gentlemen's all-nude dance club in San Antonio, TX. Last month litigation was filed against the gentlemen's club citing ADA and the club's failure to comply with those rules. In dispute was a restricted area of the club's "private lounge" were lap dances were being performed. The only access to this area was via a winding staircase.

Because the club had recently undergone building modifications, this made the entire club subject to building code review, including the private lapdance area the complainant could not access. Most legal experts agree that if the case goes to trial, the plaintiff will win.

ADA has also been used in communication-related lawsuits pertaining to hearing and visually-impaired individuals. New court cases and recent amendments to ADA now require television broadcasters to provide CC on all their content by a certain deadline.

As it pertains to the skydiving business, ADA will probably not work out as legitimate claim against the dropzone owner due to the fact that communication was not denied to the student. Even though the dropzone was unwilling to pay for an interpreter for the deaf student when one was requested, the dropzone is under no legal requirement to do so because it already provides for two forms of communication: oral and written.

Like what has been said previously.. have you ever gone to a Burger King and try to order a Whopper with sign-language? Or how about a deaf-person trying to order a Whopper through the drive-thru window? Not going to happen. You can still get your Whopper, but you can't get it your way.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.

[billvon 2,991]

>Actually, they can. They'll have certain restrictions placed on it, but
> they can get FAA Private Pilot Certificates.

Sorry, I think I actually knew that. They can certainly not get unrestricted licenses, and cannot land at an airport with a control tower. In other words, they will be discriminated against based solely on their disability. And while an ADA lawyer might call that a horrible abuse, I would tend to call it common sense.

[PhillyKev 0]

This is just proof that things can be taken to far.

"I'm stupid and lazy, I'm being discriminated against because no one will hire me in an upper level management position and pay me 6 figures."

Why should deaf people have more/better protection than stupid and lazy people? They didn't choose to be that way either. If you look at the code that Jessica linked to, it clearly states that they are required to provide whatever extra assistance they can as long as it does not constitute and undue burden. I would consider having to hire and pay an interpreter as an undue burden. Hopefully the judge does too.

(this is not a response to Bill...he just had the last post...my new standard disclaimer )

[SBS 0]

Come to think of it, here are a couple of things that I would like...

I'm tall, and I want to get my private pilot's license...150's are insanely uncomfortable because of the length of my legs, but 172's are going to cost $20-$30 more per hour than the smaller planes. I think the company should be required to provide me a 172 at a 150 price, because this is a physical limitation.

I am uncomfortable in commercial airplanes, because I am tall...I think they should be required to lengthen the legroom in airplanes to accomodate tall people.

I have ADD, and sometimes pay my bills late. I think that the credit card companies, etc., should not be allowed to charge me late fees, because of my disability.

I'm white, therefore don't see myself getting financial aid from the United Negro College Fund. I think the government should set up funds specifically for white children to go to college.

Shall I continue? :)

-S

_____________
I'm not conceited...I'm just realistic about my awesomeness...

[jfields 0]

Bill,

Quote

In addition, there are things that _must_ be accessible to all, like voting.

Skydiving is _not_ a requirement for modern life.

Skydiving really isn't the issue at all. The activity of the business (Skydive Hastings, evidently) is moot. The issue is the ability of a disabled person to get equivalent treatment and opportunity at a place of business. If it was a fish store and a blind person, they'd have to verbally describe the size, shape and colors of the fish. Being a requirement for modern life is why some of the things I mentioned were made into laws, but that is not a factor in the ADA.

That said, I totally agree with you that deaf people can skydive, and most of them don't need these accommodations. Earlier in this thread, I described my two deaf uncles. I can tell you for certain that one would be fine with a notepad and paper for q&a with the instructor. The other would be like this lady making a huge fuss.

Jessica,

"When more complex or lengthy communications are needed, it may be necessary to provide a sign language interpreter.." from the ADA Small Business Guide. Pretty ambiguous.


This whole thing is a breakdown in communication. Not relating to written, verbal, signed, or whatever. Basic communication between people. The DZ and the deaf people failed to communicate and work toward a mutually agreeable solution. Now the DZ finds itself in court and the deaf people have a DZ that is hostile to them. No winners on either side.

[christoofar 0]

Quote

What's really odd is that a) I know plenty of deaf skydivers who do not/did not need interpreters and b) these people don't seem "kept out of skydiving" since they did manage to jump already.

Considering that San Marcos DZ was the home to the world's largest deaf-way, and we have several regulars who are deaf and they communicate with the hearing without difficulty, I would argue that an ASL interpreter is not needed.

It would be great if perhaps a coah on a DZ's staff could interpret ASL as it would encourage more business, but any kind of judgment for the plaintiff is going to die a quick death on appeal.

I'm even sure a blind person could probably become a skydiver if they wanted to, we have tandems and tunnels.

Paraplegic and quadraplegic individuals have also jumped before (tandem) and I'm sure paraplegics with use of their arms could perform a decent skydive (probably could do an awesome head-down, too) and use a round canopy or maybe even a square with some good forgiving F111's that are out there.

____________________________________________________________
I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle.