All the plaintiffs are hearing impaired, some more than others. In fact some can even use phones although probably not well with strangers.

The more militant Deaf do not appreciate being called hearing impaired because they do not consider their deafness to be a condition but a culture.

Has there been any development with respect to the new LLC? I haven't seen anything.

The latest I have heard is in the January issue of the POA bulletin.

The trial is still ongoing.

No unless it is the only reasonable accommodation that will meet the deaf's needs and/or wants.

NEEDS and WANTS are two vastly different things, don't you agree?

Oh yes, definitely! If I were the lawyer for the plaintiffs, that would be how I would argue them into not requesting certified ASL interpreters for those classes they don't really need.

For example, one plaintiff wanted to take that class in History of WW II. He could have used the computer or gone to the library instead. A class addressing medical issues may be different.

No interpreting would be necessary in some art classes as long as the teacher would be willing to spend just a few minutes face-to-face with the deaf student who after all has to keep his eyes on the paper. That is what my college instructors did with me back in those days when there was no such thing as interpreting in classes.

It takes both sides to compromise. That would have been my mantra all along...compromise, compromise, compromise.

However under the ADA the deaf has the right to request such services in a "fun" class if they are offered to anyone else.

If I lived in TV, I would have requested a volunteer position as an ombudsperson between the LLC and the deaf students. This is where TV made its mistake - not having an ombudsperson. Randy McDaniel and Janet Tutt might have meant well, but they had no expertise in this area.

Today the Plaintiffs filed a motion for extension of time so to have more time to prepare documents justifying their request that the Defendants pay approximately $3M for attorneys' fees, etc. The Judge granted the motion.

Later today the Defendants filed a motion for judgement as a matter of law. They also filed a motion to have a new trial if their first motion should be denied.

For more information, see Login to PacerMonitor

According to Google:

Judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) is a motion made by a party, during trial, claiming the opposing party has insufficient evidence to reasonably support its case. JMOL is also known as a directed verdict, which it has replaced in American federal courts.

Thank you for the definition of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL).

While I support the plaintiffs' rights to reasonable accommodations under law, I support the defendants' theory that there is insufficient evidence presented by the plaintiffs on most of the issues.

This strikes me as a pretty effective summary of what this has been all about.

Copied and pasted from Login to PacerMonitor

Friday, March 24, 2017
432  motion Permanent injunction Fri 7:10 PM
MOTION for permanent injunction , declaratory relief, and to alter or amend judgment by All Plaintiffs.(Wiederhorn, Leah)


Att: 1  Exhibit A,
Att: 2  Exhibit B

It is a very long document. The conclusion gives a pretty good idea of what the Plaintiffs are seeking.