Hearing Business Owners- who hires an interpreter for a deaf employee during meetings, writes if off as a “business expense”.

Deaf Business Owners- who hires interpreters for the deaf employees during calls, is not a “business expense”. However you’re able to make profit off of them.

An open letter from Alfred Sonnenstrahl…

Alan: I did recognize the FCC’s effort to deal with the incentive to deceive and thereby abuse the reimbursement methodology, however my position is that addressing the incentive to manufacture minutes by treating VRS calls by deaf VRS employees is extreme and out of line with the intent behind Title IV. There are better ways and I think you and I do agree as evidenced in your last sentence. Given the Inslee-Woolsley correspondence to the FCC, this may emerge as the wedge we need to undo the harmful nonsense created by the DR.

CNW: I am a bit puzzled as to you being told the FCC does not view TRS as a reasonable accommodation. If not, what business does it have being in Title IV and the ADA, and……

Cousin Vinny: I competely agree with your assessment of the effective use of disparate impact as a legal argument because the disparate impact is confined to the members of the class of deaf employees of VRS providers. Given the need for a liberal leaning court (is that possible with the DC Federal bench?) to even embrace the concept of righting historical wrongs for the entire class, a subclass ain’t gonna get much protection if the vast remiander of the protected class is still “protected”. This is further weakened when one sees the governmental nexus in via the DR is the FCC’s authority to protect the Fund, which is a legitimate and rational government interest/role. This would get much judicial deference and weaken any disparate impact approach.

What we are probably left with is the Administrative Procedures Act, which was addressed well in Sorenson’s petition. This DR is completely in need of its proper notice and comment day under ths sun. The Inslee-Woolsley correspondence mentions such an approach.

the comments quoted from the letter sound suspiciously like the NAD’s position, which is shamefully illustrative of how widespread their lack of understanding has gone. a NPRM is inappropriate because first, providers are not consumers; second, requiring a NPRM in this instance would make FCC policymaking beholden to EEO concerns rather than telecom access.

d/hh people would still have access to TRS — either via other provider or non-reimbursably via their own provider — the mandated access is assured. the concern is whether they will be employed… hardly a guiding consideration for the FCC. If any d/hh person is laid off by a TRS employer on the basis of his/her hearing, that’s an express case for the EEO Commission, not the FCC.

Best way to do that is go to http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/dro and then click on “disability related”. Be warned it is like maze there, though.