Hearing Loss Discrimination
The courts and bar associations in New York continue, with few exceptions, to turn a deaf ear when it comes to the specific needs of people in the hearing loss community.
December 27, 2017 at 01:52 PM
2 minute read
Despite the fact that there are more than 48 million people in the United States with hearing loss and only about 1 million people in the US who are deaf—a difference of 480 percent (See “Hearing Loss Prevalence in the United States” by Dr. Frank Lin of John Hopkins in “Archives of Internal Medicine,”11/14/2011, pgs. 1851-1852 and see “The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, January 2006, pgs. 112-119)—the courts and bar associations in New York continue, with few exceptions, to turn a deaf ear when it comes to the specific needs of people in the hearing loss community.
Witness the 9/26/2017 press release and the 9/27/2017 article published on page one of the NY Law Journal announcing that Court of Appeals Chief Justice Janet DiFiore had appointed a 17-member Advisory Committee to “Improve Court Access for the Disabled.” The press release and article both state that when it comes to the deaf and hard of hearing, the panel will assess “the availability of sign language.”
Likewise the October 2016 Small Claims Court Guide published by the New York City Bar states that “If a party … is hearing impaired, he or she is entitled to an interpreter.”
The problem is that more than 95% of individuals with hearing loss cannot communicate via sign language; so to offer a sign language interpreter to a hearing loss person is the same as offering a Spanish-speaking interpreter to someone who only speaks Russian. It's useless. (See “How Many People Use ASL,” Gallaudet Research Institute, Ross E. Mitchell, 4/7/2004)
Until the NY courts and bar associations recognize the distinct difference between people who are deaf and those many more with hearing loss—and offer readily available assistive listening systems and communication technologies to match their degree and type of hearing loss—the courts will continue to deny access to justice to this very large and growing segment of the population simply because they can't understand what is being said.
Howard S. Davis
Oceanside, New York
Retired attorney with bilateral hearing loss
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Repealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
