Quote:
Originally Posted by outlaw
I read somewhere that the lead plaintiff has a history of other lawsuits involving ADA. If you read the judgement, all plaintiff motions were ruled in favor of the defendant, except one; the suit for damages. The judge left that one for future litigation. Thus, the developer said "no mas". I read that the plaintiffs would not except any remedy other than certified signers.
|
Whew, ya'll are a tough crowd! Hard to believe it's the same kind and generous folks who contribute to all the charities are here. I'm just going to throw some of this out here...please don't hate on me! Asking for certified interpreter is not outrageous. We don't know the whole story here but I do know that anyone can call themselves an interpreter and I've seen people take a church sign language course and learn the alphabet and then decide they're going to "save" the deaf people and go out there and interpret for them. They get themselves hired and all the hearing people watch them waving their hands around thinking they're doing a marvelous job while the deaf sit there without a clue because it's total nonsense being signed. This is why deaf folks request certified...it assures them that the interpreter has done the coursework and has the degree, has passed the extensive required testing and knows how to interpret. It's not as easy as it looks. I'm not saying that's the case here and I'm not saying you have to be certified to be qualified but often it just saves time and trouble to get them from the start. I'm as sad as the next person about the closing of the LLLC but the guy has lived here for 8 or so years and just now we're hearing about a lawsuit? Maybe he was really was trying all those years to to get a solution. We just don't have all the answers...