The U.S. Justice Department reached a settlement on claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act against two municipal employers on claims that their law enforcement agencies did not provide effective communication avenues to persons who are deaf. Allegations made concerning failure to provide such services to witnesses, crime victims, arrestees, detainees, and other members of the public were not resolved, as the settlement ended a pending investigation so no findings were made. The settlements were with the City of Englewood and the Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Office in Colorado. The investigations also concerned allegations that the agencies failed to establish and enforce sufficient policies and training regarding how to obtain qualified interpreters, when to obtain qualified interpreters, and how to interact with people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Some commentators stated that the settlements were very comprehensive and might provide models for how to comply with legal obligations regarding the deaf and hard of hearing among the U.S. law enforcement and detention agencies.
     The U.S. Department of Justice pursued a complaint that the Illinois State Police was engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in maintaining a policy automatically excluding applicants for cadet job vacancies if they have either a hearing loss and were not permitted the use of hearing aids or other assistive devices at a medical screening, or diabetes mellitus which is controlled by the use of an insulin pump. The government took the position that these job qualifications were not shown to be job related and consistent with business necessity for the job of state trooper. In a settlement, the State Police, without agreeing that its policy constituted disability discrimination, agreed to drop the automatic exclusion of candidates with diabetes or hearing loss. It agreed to individually assess such applicants for eligibility for hiring. Settlement agreement between the United States Government and Illinois State Police (Nov. 30, 2011).
     Terminated court security officer was not disabled because of a hearing impairment that was corrected by wearing hearing aids. The 2008 amendments to the ADA were not retroactive. Kemp v. Holder, #09-30255, 610 F.3d 231, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13964 (5th Cir.).
     California county agrees to a consent decree, requiring the "hiring of a qualified sign language interpreter for a qualified applicant or employee with a hearing disability." Holder v. Co. of Ventura, #CV09-06413 (C.D. Calif. 2010).
     Fifth Circuit declines to retroactively apply the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 42 U.S. Code §12112(a). Because hearing aids corrected a court security officer's hearing impairment, he was not legally disabled under the ADA at the time he filed his disabilities discrimination lawsuit, and the 2008 amendments did not supersede that finding. Kemp v. Holder, #09-30255, 2010 U.S. App. Lexis 13964  (5th Cir.).
     City of Atlanta agrees with the Justice Dept. to "contract with one or more local qualified oral/sign language interpreter agencies to ensure that the interpreting services will be available on a priority basis, twenty-four hours per day, seven days a week, to its police or make other appropriate arrangements (such as contracting directly with or hiring qualified interpreters)." The city also agreed to ensure that each police station, substation and detention facility is equipped with a working TTY. U.S. v. City of Atlanta, DJ #204-19-216, settlement agreement (12/8/2009).
     In a DoJ settlement agreement, the city of Wilmington, NC, police department agreed to implement a Policy Statement on Effective Communication with People Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and to distribute to all police officers a "Guide for Law Enforcement Officers When in Contact with People Who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing." U.S. v. City of Wilmington (E.D.N.C.).
     Tenth Circuit finds that the NPS did not discriminate against a law enforcement ranger, by requiring him to get an annual waiver for his hearing impairment, and to wear a hearing aid. He successfully performs his duties and there is no evidence that management regards him as disabled. Detterline v. Salazar, # 07-1443, 2009 U.S. App. Lexis 7489 (10th Cir.).
    A person with monaural hearing, impairing the ability to localize sounds, is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Moreover, "an allegation that the employer regards the impairment as precluding the employee from a single, particular position," such as a courthouse security officer, "is insufficient to support a claim that the employer regards the employee as having a substantially limiting impairment." Walton v. U.S. Marshals Service, #05-17308, 2007 U.S. App. Lexis 2937, 18 AD Cases. (BNA) 1705 (9th Cir.).
     Eight NYPD officers sued the city claiming that they suffered hearing loss as a result of firearms training and that the noise protection devices provided to them were defective. The city's motion to dismiss was rejected because the city failed to produce evidence that the hearing protection devices were adequate. Miniero v. City of New York, #25285 / 1992, 2007 NY Slip Op 27045, 2007 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 270 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. N.Y. 2007).
     Firefighter applicant with an audio impairment was not entitled to wear a hearing aid during his preemployment physical Carleton v. Commonwealth, #9564, 447 Mass. 791, 858 N.E. 258, 2006 Mass. Lexis 690. [N/R]
     Deaf employee was not qualified for a transfer to the security detail that apprehends shoplifters. Barnhart v. Wal-Mart Stores, #06-12024, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 27245, 2006 WL 3147301, 18 AD Cases (BNA) 1201 (11th Cir. 2006). {N/R}
     Federal court finds that investigative questioning and the arrest of a deaf mute is a "government program" under the accommodations section of the ADA -- requiring the assistance of a certified sign language interpreter -- "but only when the circumstances surrounding the activity is 'secure' and no 'threat to human safety' is present. Summary judgment was given to police officers because it was unclear that the arrest was safely made. Longworth v. St. Louis Metrop. Police Dept., #4:03CV897 (E.D. Mo. 2004). {N/R}
      A police officer's hearing loss, that was sustained over a long period of time while controlling crowds at parades and other events, was not the result of an accident. Hoehl v. Kelly, #2941, 772 N.Y.S.2d 65, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 1840 (2004). {N/R}
     Private employer agrees to pay $5.8 million to its 1000-plus deaf workers, to caption its training videos, to install visual alarms, and to provide interpreters at training programs. The employer also will pay $4.1 million in attorney fees and costs. Bates v. United Parcel Service, #C99-2216 (N.D. Cal. 2003); prior ruling at 204 F.R.D. 440, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19842 (2001). [2003 FP Oct]
     Honolulu Police Dept. settles with the DoJ regarding applicants for employment who use of hearing aids. U.S. v. Honolulu, (Unpub., D. Haw. 2002). {N/R}
     Boston jury orders reinstatement and awards $847,785 in back pay and damages to a man who was expelled from the police academy because of his audio impairment. Dahill v. Boston, 98-CV-11441 (D.Mass. 2002). [2002 FP May]
     A court's refusal to provide videotext display for an individual with a hearing impairment, who was a party to litigation, violated the ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement. Duvall v. County of Kitsap, # 99-35934, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001). [N/R]
     California appellate court upholds the termination of a police officer with a hearing impairment; officer was erroneously hired. $200,000 jury verdict set aside. Quinn v. Los Angeles, #B128454, 84 Cal.App.4th 472, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 827, 100 Cal.Rptr.2d 914. {N/R}
     Termination of a police officer because of his hearing difficulty did not violate the ADA, where there was no permanent light duty position. Stinson v. Baltimore City, 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13565, 10 AD Cases (BNA) 1562, 2000 WL 968445 (D.Md. 2000). [2000 FP 172]
     A firefighter applicant who was rejected because of a total hearing loss in his left ear is not ``qualified individual'' within the meaning of the ADA; firefighters need the ability to localize sound and discriminate among sounds. Leverett v. City of Indianapolis, 51 F.Supp.2d 949, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7660, 9 AD Cases (BNA) 1812 (S.D. Ind.). {N/R}
     TDD settlement agreement on access for the hearing-impaired at a county jail: U.S. (D.O.J.) and Fairfax Co. VA Sheriff, DoJ Complaint #204-9-18, full text at www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/fairfax.htm {N/R}
     EEOC orders pay differential for deaf FBI lab tech who was denied a promotion for unsatisfactory performance. Performance rating allegedly masked discriminatory treatment. Waldorf v. Reno, 1997 EEOPUB Lexis 4168 (EEOC). [1998 FP 166-7]
     Maryland county settles ADA complaint filed by the DoJ, and agrees to allow deaf volunteers to serve as EMTs. The civil action was begun when the county declined to certify one deaf and one hearing impaired EMT applicants. U.S. v. Prince George's Co., U.S. Dist. Ct. (D.Md. 1998). {N/R}
     Nashville agrees to employ hearing impaired EMTs. Suit brought by Justice Dept. is settled. U.S. v. Metro. Nashville, U.S. Dist. Ct. (D.Tenn 1997). {N/R}
     Federal court refuses to dismiss suit filed by a deaf FBI file clerk who alleged unequal treatment and unlawful termination. Sidor v. Reno, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 4593 and 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14260 (S.D.N.Y). EEOC also ordered the FBI to conduct a second exam. [1998 FP 90 & 167]
     Jury awards detective $295,000 plus costs. Sheriff demoted him because he wore hearing aids. Kemp v. Monge, 919 F.Supp. 404 (M.D.Fla. 1996). [1997 FP 39]
     Federal Court rejects ADA suit by police officer who was reclassified as an unarmed community service officer after coworkers complained of his hearing impairment. Karbusicky v. City/Park Ridge, 1997 U.S.Dist. Lexis 761, 950 F.Supp. 878 (N.D.Ill.). [1997 FP 39-40]
     LAPD applicant sues for discrimination; city rejected her because she wears a hearing aid. Estaville v. City of L.A., Super. Ct. #BC155501, 109 (161) LADJ 2 (1996). {N/R}
     Chicago police settle ADA complaints raised by the Justice Dept. Agreement requires installation of TDDs at 911 consoles to accommodate hearing and speech-impaired callers. U.S. v. City of Chicago, (DoJ/CR 1995). DoJ Media Ref. 95-286; AELE Ref.#5610; also see www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/il4.txt [1995 FP 112-3]
     N.Y. appellate court upholds the rejection of a police applicant who had a hearing impairment in one ear; his successful employment with another police agency is irrelevant. McCarthy v. Nassau County, 617 N.Y.S.2d 860 (A.D. 1994). [1995 FP 104]
     DoJ was not obligated to find another job for an employee with a hearing impairment and speech defect; she was terminated for unsatisfactory job performance. Araj v. Reno, DoJ Bur. of Prisons, EEOC Appeal #01920983 (8-23-1993); reh. den. sub nom Agha v. Reno, 1994 EEOPUB Lexis 1221. [1994 FP 75]
     Facility wrongfully discharged an employee with a hearing impairment, because the management failed to ask her what accommodations the facility could undertake to enable her to perform her job. Morris N. Home v. W.V. Hum. Rts. Cmsn., 431 S.E.2d 353 (W.Va. 1993). [1994 FP 75]
     City drops unfitness charge, decommissions and reassigns police officer who is deaf in one ear. Park Ridge (City of) v. Karbusicky, Fire & Police Cmsn. (1993). [1994 FP 40-1]
     Police jailer, terminated for a hearing impairment, wins $73,794 plus weekly front pay. City of Austin v. Gifford, 824 S.W.2d 735 (Tex.App. 1992). [1993 FP 9]
     State's audio fitness standards for police officers need not be individualized. Case not litigated under A.D.A. Rice v. Schuyler Co. Civil Service Cmsn., 583 N.Y.S.2d 583 (A.D. 1992). [1993 FP 57-8]
     Lack of hearing in one ear justified rejection of state police candidate, even though he presently is an officer elsewhere. Zigarelli v. New York State Police, 510 N.Y.S.2d 740 (A.D. 1987).
     Officer's hearing loss and pulmonary condition not an occupational disease; benefits still granted because of “greater exposure” of police to hazards. Garcia v. Duffy, 492 So.2d 435 (Fla. App. 1986).