Thanks!
Raychelle

Glad you noticed the mobile version. Started a couple months ago.

Ed

I think we’re almost in agreement here really. I had not thought of ABC as an employer, only as a company offering some kind of free web cast with audio portion via teleconference.

If the next available interpreter would not provide effective communication for the web cast (i.e., highly technical information) then yes I would agree, maybe they haven’t met the requirement. In terms of strictly relay world (hopefully trying to keep this great lively discussion within some boundaries or the hypothetical situations could go far and wide; though it would make my law professors envious of our discussion ) the VRS provider would be reimbursed for the call.

The same kind of idea would probably apply in the employer sense if all employees are expected to call in to the teleconference, in my opinion, it should be reimbursed. I see it first if the employer expects employees to call into a teleconference, can the Deaf/HH employee do that through VRS? Is the employer making sure they have done everything possible to facilitate that? If the typical VRS next available interpreter scenario does not provide effective communication then it’s probably a situation that moves into the realm of employer/employee accessibility which is probably outside of the boundaries of the discussion here. Though a very interesting topic that I would love to chat with you about sometime.

All in all I think we’re one the same page though, would you agree? Feel free to contact me if you want to chat about the other stuff.

Ed, you may have a second website birthing right here…

BTW – Love the mobile version that my Blackberry just started accessing of the site. Has that always been there?

I believe you hit right on the nose of the underlying issues here.

I plan to do a follow up vlog on these very issues.

Thank you, Christian, for clarifying Titles of ADA.

eyes open & thumbs up,

Ed

I’ve had some time to think more about the points I raised. Thinking about this and looking at how the Titles in the ADA are set up, I think a simple legal test could be done to determine whether the call is ‘appropriate’ for TRS.

First off, let me say that this is only my opinion and I’ve not taken all factors into consideration such as legislative history, FCC interpretations, etc. This is just my idea on how TRS calls can be sorted in determining which calls can be reimbursed.

My idea is basically simple. It looks at the Titles of the ADA. First, there is the reasonable accommodation requirement which applies to employment (Title I) and accommodations, public and private (Titles II & III). Now, the first part of the test determines whether the VRS call would be considered as a reasonable accommodation for employees. For example, if an employer provides training by teleconference for its employees, then the employer is responsible for finding the reasonable accommodation and pay for it. The public should not foot the bill for reasonable accommodations under Title I. Also, this analysis would not reimburse calls set up by employers for conference calls for its employees as the employer needs to ensure equal access and foot the bill themselves.

Now, if it is not an employer/employee type of call, then one must determine whether it would be a reasonable accommodation under either Title II or Title III. If a paying deaf consumer wishes to use training through the phone, then it is the responsibility of the training provider to take care of reasonable accommodations and TRS should not be used.

If it doesn’t fit any of the three Titles, then it should be considered a legitimate or organic call. There are many scenarios in how this analysis may be carried out.

I also would like to note it’s my opinion that the undue burden analysis shouldn’t be used here. I mean, if the employer says that the proposed reasonable accommodation is too expensive or whatnot, the cost should not be passed onto the public through the TRS Fund regardless.

My point here is that the ADA places responsibility on employers and accommodations (public and private) to ensure/provide equal access. They should foot the bill themselves and not pass on the costs to the public.

Thanks, Christian Wojnar

Thank you for your comments. This is really a controversial issue to be sure. I plan to do a follow up vlog on this whole shebang and explain and expand that there are still sticky issues. Be on lookout for that.

Ed

Many Sorenson employees read your blog about “organic minutes” and we wanted to express our support for your position. As an authorized representative of Sorenson Communications I wanted to let you know that you are not alone on this important issue. Back in November 2008 the National Association for State Relay Administration (NASRA) filed a letter with the FCC identifying many of the same concerns you raised in your blog entry (See http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520187041). Sorenson quickly followed up with its own filing, strongly supporting the NASRA letter. (see http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6520187918)

In the end it should be “consumer driven minutes” that determine the success of a VRS provider. Moreover, for all VRS providers, the real measure of character is whether they play by the rules.

Mike Maddix
Regulatory Affairs Manger
Sorenson Communications, Inc.

To the extent your provider is manufacturing minutes, take your business elsewhere!

Thanks for your great service with this site, Ed.

I’m humbled and honored that u consider me an empowered Deaf person and use in ur presentation. Geez, that is a lesson for me to lose my pounds of blubber then. Again, thank you.

eyes closed and thumbs way up,

I am on the road to do an ADA training for a small non-profit. I have spent the last week re-reading all five Titles of the ADA and re-reading all of the court cases, DOJ settlements, and some opinion pieces (both mindless and mindful personal rants).

Thank you for keeping this discussion alive and thank you for the video blog that I am going to show in my presentation on friday to demonstrate what an empowered Deaf person looks like!

(Ethical disclaimer for my fellow ranters: I am doing the training as a volunteer, not being paid. So my use of Ed as a demo of an empowered Deaf person is not a misuse of another person’s work for personal profit.)