It is definitely wrong and it is an example of when organizations, it appears the city hired this person directly, decide to go with “whatever” instead of “accessibility”. The city could have engaged the caller in a true dialogue about what accommodations they needed. The ADA encourages that conversation to happen from what I understand. Through a longer conversation and engaging the Deaf citizen in the process the city probably would have come across hints that this might not be a real request.

Of course, they could have, should have, and probably will now, use interpreters who are certified by RID. Perfect timing though RID just released some great videos describing the ethical practices grievance system (EPS) in case anyone would like to watch them.

(hopefully the embed will work of the first video here)

There are a couple issues that come up though in my experience. If the agency (referral service) treats the interpreter as an independent contractor then the interpreter has every right to advertise their individual services, including giving their own business card. If the interpreter and the agency have agreed that they will not give out their business card then it probably means the interpreter is not an independent contractor but actually an employee.

One of the big factors that I’ve learned over the years having owned an interpreting service firm with almost 50 employees (interpreters) is that control and direction can be determinative of that relationship employee or independent contractor. I have read situations where a state employment development agency/tax department has said that telling someone to not give out their own individual business card but to advertise the business can make the person an employee.

The relevant tenant of the RID CPC is quoted below for easy reference.