# 178

II-1.2000
II-7.1000
III-1.2000
III-4.3200 December 13, 1995

The Honorable Trent Lott

United States Senate
487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-2403

Dear Senator Lott:

I am responding to your letter on behalf of your

constituent, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, regarding requirements under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

According to Mr. XXXXXXXX' letter, he is an attorney

representing an individual who is deaf in a trial about a
speeding ticket. The court has informed him that he must provide
an interpreter for his client during the trial. Mr. XXXXXXXX
proposes to use a 15-year-old who has a deaf parent as the
interpreter.

Title III of the ADA prohibits people who own or operate

places of public accommodation, such as attorneys, from
discriminating on the basis of disability in the provision of
their services. In addition, title II of the ADA prohibits State
and local government entities, such as courts, from
discriminating on the basis of disability in their programs,
services, and activities.

Both title II and title III require covered entities to

ensure effective communication with the participants in their
programs or services, including participants with hearing
impairments, unless doing so would cause a fundamental alteration
of the program or service or would result in an undue burden. 28
C.F.R. ​ 35.160-164; 28 C.F.R. 36.303. Therefore, unless it
would cause a fundamental alteration or undue burden,
Mr. XXXXXXXX must provide necessary auxiliary aids, including, if
necessary, qualified sign language interpreters to ensure
effective communication in his out-of-court communications with
his client. In-court communications, however, fall within the
jurisdiction of the court and, therefore, are covered by title
II. The court must ensure effective communication through
appropriate auxiliary aids, including, if necessary, qualified
sign language interpreters, for such in-court proceedings, unless
to do so would cause a fundamental alteration or undue burden.

A sign language interpreter is not a necessary auxiliary aid

in all situations. In some contexts, other auxiliary aids may be
adequate. In determining what constitutes an effective auxiliary
aid or service, covered entities must consider, among other
things, the length and complexity of the communication involved.
A note pad and written materials may be sufficient means for
short, uncomplicated communications. Where, however, the
information to be conveyed is lengthy or complex, the use of
handwritten notes may be inadequate and the use of an interpreter
may be the only effective form of communication. Use of
interpreter services is not necessarily limited to the most
extreme situations. The enclosed Technical Assistance Manuals
address this issue at II-7.1000 and III-4.3200.

In order to satisfy the effective communication requirement

of the ADA, any sign language interpreter that is provided must
be qualified. Although an interpreter need not be certified, he
or she must be able to effectively sign to the individual who is
deaf what is being said by the hearing person and to effectively
voice to the hearing person what is being signed by the
individual who is deaf. The interpreter must be able to
accomplish these communications effectively, accurately, and
impartially. In some contexts, such as some legal proceedings,
this may require knowledge of the applicable specialized
vocabulary.

I hope this information is helpful to you in responding to

your constituent.

Sincerely,

Deval L. Patrick
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

Enclosures