TOYS 'R' US SUED FOR ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Toys "R" Us for alleged disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A deaf woman applied for a job at the retailer's store in Columbia, Maryland, and she says the store refused to provide a sign language interpreter for her interview and then declined to hire her despite her qualifications and ability to perform the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

Questions and answers

  1. Is the implication that it's reasonable for a company to hire an interpreter any time a job applicant needs it?

    The implication is that, under the ADA, providing an interpreter can be a reasonable accommodation that an employer must consider on a case-by-case basis. The goal is effective communication during the interview, and in some situations that means an interpreter if no undue hardship exists.

    The problem in this case was the retailer's flat refusal to provide an interpreter for the interview and the failure to offer an alternative method of communication. The applicant was told to provide her own accommodation, and there is no indication the employer claimed undue hardship.

  2. What if a company interviews 10 people for a low-wage job and hires only one? What if two applicants are deaf — do they need an interpreter for each candidate?

    In some situations, an employer may need to provide interpreters for multiple deaf applicants. The Toys "R" Us matter involved a group interview; in that context a single interpreter might have been enough. Whether one or more interpreters are needed depends on effective communication and the specific circumstances.

  3. If hired, what is the employer's obligation to provide an interpreter? That interpreter could cost more per hour than the employee.

    If an applicant is hired, the employer must assess the need for an interpreter on a case-by-case basis. For some roles the need will be minimal; for others communication demands may be greater. Courts and agencies generally do not accept the argument that an interpreter's hourly rate makes accommodation an undue hardship without a detailed analysis.

My take: the ADA's case-by-case analysis frustrates many employers, especially smaller firms that may find costs burdensome. Larger companies often absorb these expenses more easily, but when in doubt employers should seek guidance and document their analysis.

For related legal and employment-discrimination context, see In-N-Out Burger and Employment Discrimination Cases.

For broader insight on employer responsibilities and potential liabilities, see In-N-Out Burger and Legal Insights.

If you need help applying these principles to a specific situation, consider talk to an agent who can guide you on documentation and insurance products that may be relevant.

Frequently Asked Questions

When must an employer provide an interpreter for an interview?

An employer must consider providing an interpreter when it is needed for effective communication, assessing the request on a case-by-case basis and documenting any undue hardship determination.

Can an employer require the applicant to bring their own interpreter?

An employer should not insist the applicant provide their own interpreter without first considering whether the employer can provide one or offer an alternative method of communication.

Are small businesses treated differently under the ADA when it comes to interpreter costs?

Size and resources can factor into an undue hardship analysis, so small businesses should assess requests carefully and seek guidance as needed.

What documentation should an employer keep when evaluating accommodation requests?

Keep records of the accommodation request, steps taken to provide effective communication, any alternative solutions considered, and the reason for any undue hardship determination.

Need insurance for You, Your Family or Your Business?
We can match you to a qualified, local insurance expert!
Further Reading
Overview Employment decisions at high-volume retail and food-service employers sometimes trigger disparate impact or discrimination claims when hiring statistics differ from the available applicant pool. Cases like the one involving In‑N‑Out Burger...
On June 1, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in EEOC v. Abercrombie that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was not required to prove that a Muslim job applicant had requested an accommodation to wear a headscarf in order to show she was de...
Overview The construction workforce has evolved from physically intensive crews to work that relies more on mechanization, planning, and technical skills. As site work becomes less about brute strength and more about knowledge and safe equipment use...
Winter holidays give your company an opportunity to host celebratory parties and have fun. You could be liable, though, if you celebrate the holidays in a way that discriminates against employees. Be sure your holiday festivities celebrate diversity...
The last chance before trial: For an employer facing a discrimination lawsuit, summary judgment is often the final opportunity to have the case dismissed before trial. A decision by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals shows how an employer’s d...