Quote:
Originally Posted by Leisha2
I think an easy solution would have been for The Villages to pay for an interpreter in any class a deaf person took. If no deaf people were attending, no interpreter needed. I don't believe there would have been deaf people in that many classes. That wouldn't have cost over 1 mil as the Villages stated in its case.
|
I assume that solution refers to the cost of providing interpreters for classes given by the Lifelong Learning College. But Schwarz et al complained about the Recreation Dept. RLGs (clubs), and alleged discrimination under Title II of the ADA, and the Fair Housing Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against the VCCDD and SLCDD. The judge agreed with the Districts and granted their Motions of Summary Judgment in favor of the Defendants under the ADA and the Fair Housing Act, but denied in part the motion under the Rehabilitation Act because the school corporation receives some funding from the Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Agriculture for the K-12 programs. The LLC proved it is self-supporting through class fees and does not share in any other funding. However it didn't satisfy the court that providing interpreters or finding another acceptable option would create an undue financial hardship. So, why would Schwarz et al, after winning this part of the case, launch an APPEAL, unless they still wanted to go after the Districts and the RLGs (clubs)?
I know one club that collects around $125. per year to cover costs. Say a plaintiff wanted to attend and required an interpreter at $100 per meeting for 22 meetings. Add $2200 to the costs and that is unsustainable. Mr. Schwarz claims he is a financial advisor, as well as an activist for the deaf, so I'd like to hear what solution he proposes?