DEC 15, 1994

The Honorable Mitch McConnell

United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510-1702

Dear Senator McConnell:

This letter is in response to your inquiry on behalf of your

constituent, XX , regarding the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). XX is concerned that the ADA
requires public entities to use the services of interpreters, but
that the Federal government does not regulate interpreter
services.

The ADA is a comprehensive civil rights statute that

prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. Title II of
the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in
all programs, activities, and services provided or operated by
public entities, including the Pulaski County School District.

The Department of Justice regulation implementing title II,

28 C.F.R. Part 35, requires that public entities furnish
appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford
an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or
activity conducted by a public entity. Sign language
interpreters may be employed to meet this obligation.

In determining whether an interpreter is an appropriate

auxiliary aid, factors to consider are the context in which the
communication is taking place, the number of people involved, and
the importance of the communication. Thus, this provision is
somewhat flexible. For example, in many simple transactions,
such as paying bills or filing applications, communications
provided through written materials and written notes may provide
effective communication. However, situations which involve more
complex or extensive communications, such as a classroom
discussion, may require the use of qualified interpreters,
assistive listening systems or other aids or services.

cc: Records Chrono Wodatch Breen Blizard FOIA

McDowney Freidlander
N:\UDD\BERGER\MCCONNEL\secy.thompson
01-03517​
-2-
A public entity is not required to take any action that it
can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial
burden and administrative burdens.

While title II requires that any interpreter used by a

public entity must be "qualified," i.e., able to interpret
effectively, accurately, and impartially both receptively and
expressively, using any necessary specialized vocabulary, the ADA
does not require an interpreter to hold a degree or to be
"certified." This definition focuses on the actual ability of
the interpreter in a particular interpreting context to
facilitate effective communication.

XX also expressed concern regarding limited

interpreter services in her area and the expense of these

services. Supply and demand in a free market is responsible for
interpreter costs. The ADA has no provisions for regulating the
fees of interpreting services or any other auxiliary aid or
service. However, the title II regulation states that a public
entity may not place a surcharge on a particular individual with
a disability or any group of individuals with disabilities to
cover the costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary
aids, needed to comply with the ADA.

I hope this information will be helpful to you in

responding to your constituent.

Sincerely,

Loretta King
Acting Assisting Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

01-03518​

XX
Somerset, Kentucky XX
FAX COVER SHEET

DATE: October 13, 1994 TIME: 4:55 PM

TO: Senator Mitch McConnell PHONE: XX

FAX: XX

FROM: XX PHONE: XX
FAX: XX

RE: Interpreters for the Deaf and ADA

Number of pages including cover sheet: 2

Message
Dear Senator McConnell,
For many years, my husband XX and I have been avid
supporters of yours. I am deaf, and I met you a few years ago at XX
home.

My reasons for contacting you are because I need your help regarding
the ADA laws and the deaf. First, I would like to praise all the
peacemakers who have brought this law for the disabled about. However, as
a deaf individual, I am concerned that some areas have been overlooked and
need to be brought to your attention immediately before our future is
robbed by misuse of this law.

The problems I would like to discuss with you stem from the
question, "How could our federal government enforce such a law when there are
not ample resources to fulfill it?"

I am speaking of Interpreters for the deaf. Now that federal law

requires agencies and businesses to provide the deaf with Interpreters,
I am seeing too many Interpreters taking advantage of this situation by
setting their own fees, deciding how they will bill, and charging for
travel time and also mileage. Due to the low supply of Interpreters, there
is no competition out there and it is becoming aggravating not only to the
deaf community, but also those businesses who must pick up the tab. I feel
there is a pressing need for the federal government to set this matter
straight as it is getting out of hand. There needs to be consistency in
this trade because now federal law has enforced the use of Interpreters
upon our society. I understand there is a free trade act, enabling those
to run their own businesses, but federal law doesn't force someone to hire
a plumber. The trade of Interpreting needs to fall into the governments
hands, and not be taken lightly.
01-03519
2
I would like to share with you some incidents that I have
experienced in just this past month. Presently, there is a child in our
Pulaski County School District who is deaf and requires an Interpreter. He has
been deprived of two months of education because the Interpreter that the
district has been negotiating with cannot come to terms with her salary.
They are offering her $12.50 per hour for a full time job with benefits.
She is saying she is worth $20.00 per hour, and I can guarantee you that
she is not even currently certified. If the district were to pay her that,
she would be making more than the Principal of the school responsible for
1000 students, while she would be responsible for just one child. It makes
me furious that this child cannot speak out for himself.

The Lexington Center has made some very impressive efforts to

accommodate the hearing and visually impaired at the Rupp Arena. I worked
with them on getting the recent Reba McEntire concert interpreted. It
turned out to be a wonderful experience and we are looking forward to
future ones as well. I had highly recommended a nationally certified
Interpreter to them which they used, and she did a fine job. However, when
the Interpreter billed the Center, I questioned many things which I felt
were unfair. After discussing the bill with the General Manager at the
Center, he decided it was best to let this time go. I have encouraged them
to issue a contract for future shows, where they would be setting the
rules as the employer. I am anticipating problems from the Interpreters
with this idea, but there must be a way where things will not get out of
control.

It is my plea that you take a look at what is going on around the

ADA law. For most disabilities, the special needs are being installed to meet
the requirements and only need to be updated, but with the deaf,
Interpreters will always be an ongoing thing. Please set the rules if the
law is to be enforced.

Also, I would like to make a suggestion about the supply of

Interpreters. Since interpreting has become in such demand, why don't we
make it a big part of our school's curriculum, encouraging students to go
into that field like we do with other professions? Most Interpreters today
know someone who is deaf and acquired their skills from them. We need to
treat it as a learned profession and offer programs in colleges where
degrees can be given.
 Thank you for your time on this matter. I have discussed my concerns
with the Kentucky Commission for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired in
Frankfort, but was told that since the ADA was a federal law, they as a
state agency, could not do anything. Coincidentally, the person I spoke
with was an Interpreter. I hope you will not consider this matter to be
petty, as the deaf community considers it to be of utmost importance.

Sincerely,

XX
Somerset, Kentucky
2