« FCC Orders Emergency Call Handling and Commits to Numbering for Internet Relay Users in 2008 | Main | NAD Advocates for Interpreters for United Nations Tours »
NAD Says Courts Should Treat Relay Calls Same as Voice Calls
By advocacy | March 25, 2008
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) and a private law firm are representing a deaf man who alleges that a company did not hire him because he is deaf. The case presents a question never before addressed by a court: whether relay calls should be treated the same as voice telephone calls.
In 2005, the man applied for a job. The company called, left a message, and he returned the call using his TTY and a relay service. The man says that during that relay call, the company invited him to interview for the position. The man also says that the company agreed to contact him again with the time and place of the interview. Instead, the company contacted him and told him he would not be hired.
He filed a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In 2006, the EEOC issued a favorable ruling, but did not resolve the case. He then filed a complaint in a United States District Court. In 2007, the company asked the court to dismiss the case. In support of that request, the company said that the alleged offer of an interview was not admissible as evidence because it is “hearsay.” The court agreed and dismissed the case for lack of admissible evidence showing that the company discriminated against the man because he is deaf.
The term “hearsay” refers to a statement made outside of the courtroom by a person who is not present in the courtroom. Generally, statements that are hearsay cannot be admitted as evidence. There is, however, a rule that says that anything a party (a plaintiff or a defendant) says out of court can be used against that party in court. This is like the rule that “anything a person says can be used against him in court.”
The company argued that because the call was made through a relay service, the statement the man read on his TTY was made by the communications assistant (the relay operator), not by the company. Therefore, the relay operator would need to testify about what she heard the company say. The United States District Court agreed.
The NAD Law and Advocacy Center joined with the private law firm to appeal the court’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals. In documents filed with the Court of Appeals, the NAD explained relay services, why they were established, how they function, and how they are regulated. The NAD explained that ADA established relay services to provide functionally equivalent telephone services for people who are deaf or hard of hearing or who have a speech disability. The NAD stated that if statements made during a voice telephone call are admissible in court, then statements made during a call made through a relay service should also be admissible in court.
The United States Department of Justice and the EEOC also filed briefs supporting the admissibility of statements made through a relay call.
Topics: General |
March 25th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I agree with NAD say it should be same as voice calls. Not hearsay.
the deaf guy have a tty printer. Obviously Relay Service operator is translated what he typed his own words to companies..
The companies are played with deaf victims person. It need to be honesty as voical calls. not message.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
That is very good news for deaf citizens everywhere in the United States.
The email correspondences already seen as a standard communication feature to be admitted into the law of court.
At last, deaf people have the real victory on their hands to hand in the admissible evidence within the use of relay services.
Thanks to the NAD’s Law and Advocacy Center for their hard work and dedication and committment to the true justice for deaf people.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
March 25th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
” Again, Sad that Hearing people from the company often abusived and don’t really understand what deaf world that the guy need a job so badly..”
Hurt him for not getting a job and 90% in USA deaf employer are underemployer and trapped in their lives need.
I am also unemployed for more than a year.
Deaf Pixie
April 1st, 2008 at 11:42 am
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court, since such conversations are considered hearsay. By that definition, interpreters have to be excluded from the courtroom. I’d like to see how the judge reacts when the Deaf person in the courtroom is unable to communicate properly in the courtroom.