Effective communication, not just any attempt
Title II of the ADA requires a public entity to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate (28 C.F.R. § 35.160). Title III applies the same idea to public accommodations (28 C.F.R. § 36.303). The governing standard is whether communication is as effective as it is for a person without a disability, and the entity must give primary consideration to the auxiliary aid or service the individual requests.
The regulations also close the loopholes people run into most. An entity may not require a Deaf person to bring their own interpreter. It may not rely on an accompanying adult to interpret except in limited circumstances, and it may not require a minor child to interpret except in an emergency. Video remote interpreting is permitted only where it delivers effective communication, which depends on the connection, the equipment and the operator.
California adds a damages remedy
- Civil Code § 51 (Unruh Civil Rights Act): disability discrimination by a business is actionable, with damages under § 52 and a $4,000 statutory minimum per violation
- Civil Code § 54 and § 54.1: full and equal access to public places and accommodations
- Government Code § 11135: programs receiving state financial assistance
- Attorney's fees are available, which is often what makes a small individual claim economically viable
Where access fails most often
- Hospitals and clinics: intake, triage, consent, discharge instructions and billing without a qualified interpreter
- Police encounters: stops, arrests, Miranda warnings and interviews conducted through lip-reading or a family member
- Courts: proceedings and jury service without an appointed interpreter (Evidence Code § 754 governs appointment for Deaf and hard of hearing participants in California proceedings)
- Schools: IEP meetings and parent conferences held without access
- Government offices, DMVs, shelters and public benefits interviews
- Hotels, restaurants, retail counters and rideshare or transit interactions
Complaints and claims
There are several tracks, and they do not substitute for one another: an administrative complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice or the relevant federal agency, a complaint to the state agency that funds the program, and a civil suit. Civil claims in California generally carry a two-year limitations period under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Where the defendant is a public entity, a written government claim within six months under Government Code § 911.2 is a prerequisite to suit under § 945.4.
Common questions
Can a hospital use a video interpreter instead of an in-person interpreter?
Only if the video service actually provides effective communication. Poor image quality, a disconnected call, or an untrained remote operator is not effective communication, and DOJ guidance treats those failures as violations.
Can they ask my hearing family member to interpret?
Generally no. Federal regulations bar relying on an accompanying adult except in limited circumstances, and never on a minor child except in an emergency.
Do I have to pay for the interpreter?
No. The cost of auxiliary aids is the covered entity's obligation, not yours, and a business cannot charge you for providing access.
What if I did not ask for an interpreter?
It helps your case to have asked, but the obligation is the entity's. Where the need for an interpreter is obvious, a failure to offer one can violate the law even without a request.