# 141

III-4.3600 August 29, 1994

The Honorable Michael R. McNulty

U.S. House of Representatives
217 Cannon Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3221

Dear Congressman McNulty:

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

constituent, Kristin L. Woodward, workshop coordinator for the
Colonie Art League, Inc. Ms. Woodward requested guidelines for
the provision of interpreter services by her organization for
workshops and courses. She further sought to clarify if this
responsibility would extend to the group's regular monthly
meetings.

Ms. Woodward's query relates most directly to the auxiliary

aids and services provisions of title III. Such aids and
services must be provided by public accommodations to ensure
"effective communication" for individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing or who have impaired vision or speech. Under title III
of the ADA, "public accommodations" are private entities who own,
operate, lease, or lease to, a place of public accommodation. In
the present instance, it would appear that both the Colonie Art
League, Inc., and the contracted artist would have obligations as
covered entities under title III for the proposed workshop.

The auxiliary aids requirement is intended to be flexible,

reflecting the variable nature of what constitutes effective
communication. In addition to the specific nature of the
disability involved, factors used to determine communication
effectiveness in any given circumstance include the length,
complexity, and significance of the information being exchanged.

Under section 36.301(c) of the title III regulation, when an

interpreter or other auxiliary aid or service is necessary to
ensure effective communication, the covered entity must absorb
the cost of this aid or service, unless it would result in an
undue burden. The term "undue burden" means "significant
difficulty or expense." In determining whether the provision of
an interpreter or other aid or service would result in an undue
burden, covered entities should consider their overall financial
resources.

Ms. Woodward states that the provision of interpreter

services for the workshop would place her organization in the
position of operating at a financial loss. One should consider,
however, the extent to which the interpreter costs could be
shared contractually with the artist, who also has an independent
obligation to provide auxiliary aids. Failure of the artist
though, to fulfill his or her ADA or contractual obligations does
not in any way relieve Colonie Art League, Inc., of its ADA
responsibilities.

In addition to cost-sharing, another option might be to

consider raising the workshop fees slightly for all registrants
to cover the cost of auxiliary aids and other measures to remove
barriers to participation by people with disabilities. This same
principle could be applied to monthly meetings.

Another avenue to explore would be the availability of

outside funding sources for interpreter services. Some states
have monies available through health care or education funds that
may be applied to interpreter services, if the activities are
either therapeutic or educational in nature.

The auxiliary aids provisions of title III of the ADA do not

compel covered entities to comply with a unilateral determination
of an individual with a disability that a particular interpreter,
or any auxiliary aid, is essential to effective communication.
Ideally, the covered entities and the individual would arrive at
a mutually acceptable choice through a process of consultation.
This specific point is illustrated in section III-4.3200 on page
28 of the Department of Justice's Title III Technical Assistance
Manual. Additional relevant information may be found in the
preamble discussion of section 36.303 on pages 35567-35568 of the
title III regulation. These documents are enclosed.

I trust that this information will be helpful in your

response to your constituent.
 Sincerely,

Stuart J. Ishimaru
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division

Enclosures