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
![](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2017/12/hearing-aid.jpg)
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This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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![The Late Justice Sondra Miller and 'Best Interests of the Child' The Late Justice Sondra Miller and 'Best Interests of the Child'](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/08/Sondra_Miller_1-767x633.jpg)
![Title, Conclusion of Recent Matrimonial Law Column Misleading Title, Conclusion of Recent Matrimonial Law Column Misleading](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/06/Email-767x633.jpg)
![Repealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law Repealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/389/2024/05/Divorce-settlement-767x633.jpg)
Repealing Fault Grounds for Divorce Would Have Little Effect on NY Matrimonial Law
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Thursday Newspaper
- 2Public Notices/Calendars
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-117
- 4Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 5Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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