A synagogue or a church or exempt from the ADA.

Empathy and Compassion
 

I am of two minds in this controversy.

1. In view of the accuracy in Voice To Text programs in modern cell phones, I find it difficult to believe that a Voice to Text projector in the classroom would not be a reasonable accommodation in the spirit of the ADA law. Not perfect perhaps, but reasonable. Most people who can hear do not catch every word that a speaker says; Voice to Text need not be better than that.

2. I would not be so negative about the Schwartz lawsuit if it simply asked for enforcement of the ADA law, but I understand that the plaintiffs are asking for payment to them of money for "damages" because they could not reach an agreement with the school operators.

3. For years I looked at the wheelchair ramp cuts in curbings as a curiosity. Then the day came that I was confined to a wheelchair. Now I realize how many obstacles there were in public areas to people in wheelchairs just a few years ago. I would probably be mostly homebound if it were not for the ADA laws. This is ironic because I was once the ADA compliance officer at my old Sheriff's Office, and worked to accommodate our disabled employees.

Here's a thought. Obtain a set of shooter's earmuffs and wear them all day, including going out to eat, going to a town square during the entertainment, and doing a little shopping. See how it is to order a meal when you can't hear the server. See how it is to not be able to hear the music while people are line dancing. See how you interact with salespeople whom you can't hear. How much TV will you watch when many of the programs are not Closed Captioned? How will you use a telephone? (Yes, I know about TTY phones. It can be done, but requires special equipment.)

Then you might better understand the situation of the hearing impaired.

CAUTION: I recommend against driving with the muffs on. It might even be illegal in Florida, and it certainly will increase your chances of being in a traffic crash. Also, when on foot have a friend with you who can hear who can help keep you from being run over when you cross streets.

Empathy and compassion are good emotions.

This is an update to the meeting at Laurel Manor, Dec 20th at 7:00. With POA
I have not been able to confirm the agenda. This was mentioned on NEXTDOOR and I am just sharing the info.

As mentioned in last email there will be a meeting above. We must bring up WHY or WHAT can be done to correct the legal suit brought by Mr Swartz against The Villages Lifestyle College. We need everyone to attend this to fight for our rights to open the College again. See you there. Bernadette

Remember a basic point that many contributors to this thread apparently don't understand: Nothing in the lawsuit, despite the Daily Sun headline, "forced" the LLLC to close.

The LLLC was closed because a decision to do so was made by the Developer. The Developer controls the Charter School, and the Charter School runs the LLLC. The name "The Villages Lifelong Learning College" is merely a fictitious name, owned by the Charter School, that the Charter School uses to conduct adult ed classes.

School systems throughout the country run adult education programs, like the LLLC, despite the existence of the Americans with Disability Act. The question that needs to be answered is: Why cannot the Developer-controlled Charter School do the same???

Because of Schwarz!


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

PPoints well made

Schwartz, et al v LifeLearning College
 

What lurks in the heart of men? Perhaps the shadow know but I don't.

The Villages (Villages of Lake-Sumter, Inc, wholly subsidiaries, district, etc) built a community. They are required to follow all rules, laws and regulations (period) EEOC requires reasonable accommodations for the handicap (period). The Villages ignored closed caption with its television station which resulted in a lawsuit. I was here then. According to reading of this lawsuit the violations continue. Our Republic was crafted to protect the minority

Schwartz has been called many things. But I am not the Shadow so unless his claims are fraudulent he has every right to proceed including asking for monetary damages. it may well be noted that a claim for punitive damages is probable, but unlikely if The Villages is seen as acting in bad faith .

It was The Villages that decided to close LLC not the plaintiffs

I have read many times from many members on these very pages that the law's the law when it comes to speeding carts/car, etc. Well the law's s the law.

If The villages is not in EEOC compliance well then that's the law

I take no sides but that of the rule of law and no one is above the law.

We do not have the facts though with respect to what kind of reasonable accommodations were made by the developer and their staff and/or employees for the deaf. These battles though often just involve the clash of egos of lead people who will not compromise over petty details. Two narcissists in a room spend too much time looking for mirrors so to speak.

There is a lot of blame to go around.

What Schwarz and the plaintiffs did in bringing the lawsuit was reprehensible. They have been responsible for destroying a major asset of our community. Before starting the suit, they should have reached out to the community for support. This is a community of volunteers. Had Schwarz and the others publicly described their concerns, people could have stepped up to help or volunteer: sign-language interpreters, donations for speech-to-text equipment, etc.

Furthermore, modern speech-to-text software and equipment clearly works well enough in this day and age to constitute "reasonable accommodation". I recently watched, using closed captions, a live panel discussion among six participants on CNN. While not perfect, the captions clearly allowed the viewer to follow the substance of the discussion. Keep in mind also that sign-language "interpreters" interpret, they don't translate. That is, the are conveying the substance of what is being said.

In fact, it seems clear that it is just a matter of time before sign-language interpreters go the way of Latin interpreters. A problem seems to be intransigence on the part of the plaintiffs, who are part of a deaf culture that is centered on sign language and supports a commercial sign-language industry. It does not seem that members of that culture should expect the public to pay for their resistance to technological change.

On the other hand, the Developer, who controls both the defendants in the case, suppressed all news of the litigation for years-- apparently to avoid bad publicity. Then, without any public discussion or pleas for the kind of community input and involvement described above, he abruptly pulled the rug out from under us by closing down the Lifelong Learning College-- that at a point in time when the defendants were winning the lawsuit.

What prompted him to do this? School systems throughout the country run adult ed programs like the Lifelong Learning College despite the ADA and lawsuits like this one. The details underlying his decision are unclear, and the two articles in the Developer-controlled Daily Sun fail to shine much light on the subject, other than launching a barrage of criticisms (at least some of which appears to be well deserved) at the plaintiffs.

Those captions were typed by a real person, not any speech-to-text software.

I am not sure how you know that, and I doubt it. However, the particular CNN program I alluded to is not all that relevant. The point is that today's speech to text software works reasonably well.

Like most people, I use speech-to-text software every day on my I-phone and it works-- not perfectly, but well enough to convey the substance of what is said. There is no justification for a nonprofit, like the Charter School, in order to satisfy the predilection of a small number of people, having to bear the cost of sign-language interpreters rather than to provide, the less-expensive, speech-to-text software and equipment.

I just do. ;)


You shouldn't. :p



The giveaway was that you said there were 6 participants.

Speech to text could never keep up with that many different voices, as there aren't even programs yet that are reliable enough to do more than one voice at a time.



Here, educate yourself.

Closed captioning - Wikipedia

For a single, slowly spoken voice.

I am glad that you will concede that, because that is exactly the relevant point.

If they are using speech-to-text in a classroom to accommodate a deaf classmate, they will certainly pass the microphone around and speak slowly-- one at a time. Everybody would be trying to take the necessary steps to make it work and help their deaf classmate. Most people want to help. However, the statutory requirement is "reasonable accommodation", not "spend a lot of money to try to satisfy the disabled person's every whim".

If the statute really required the latter, then the posters who are angry about what just transpired here ought to contact their Congressmen about changing the law.

May we presume, from the nature of your comments, that you are one of the plaintiffs? If so, maybe you can help us better understand the events leading up to the Developer's decision to close down the LLLC. Thus far, we just have his version, as presented in the Daily Sun.

Tal; I agree with what you say. My only point is that something triggered the need to adjudicate this case. I also agree with the imprecision of application of "reasonable accommodations. The Villages television station was not equipped with close caption. Was it unreasonable for the plaintiffs to ask for said accommodation when in point of law it is clear that close captioning should have been provided. This local station carries information of all sorts entertainment safety issue warnings etc important to the community.

My other point is that there continues to be character assassination against the plaintiffs. I would perhaps agree if the claims filed had no merit but I am not privy to the goings on in this filing and like most people getting just hearsay information

The owners of these properties often takes their entire staff island hopping. So, even absent the law, is it unreasonable that they take a small portion of their profits for such accommodations.

Once again I'm not taking sides the applicable laws and the facts of this case will decide its ultimate outcome as to what is legal, moral and just

You presume/assume...incorrectly.

I moved here after this lawsuit was filed...and am not deaf.

I am however, an advocate of the ADA...for those not as fortunate as myself.

I am also pretty amazed at how you made the leap from someone pointing out your error (which you still refused to acknowledge)....to hoping you had a target for your ire. :ohdear: