Language People

I am not going to argue the interpretations of Mr [redacted] there were a few misrepresentations in his responseIt is clear that there is a vast contrast in beliefs and theoriesHowever Mr [redacted] did offer $100,and I told him that I was not authorized to accept that as we go 40% as the maximum; however I did state that would take it up with the C.E.O of the company who has the authority to discount it further and as he stated in his letter he offered the $as payment in fullThe C.E.Ohas advised me that she is accepting that settlement as payment in full! We look forward to receiving the payment promptly, Therefore this written response is to confirm that acceptance

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.) Mr [redacted] 's response was not completely factual and is also extremely disingenuousHe believes that if I were an "honest" person, and knows the law, and the situation I would pay his billIn response I am an extremely honest person, have knowledge of the law, not comparable to an individual that has built a business of suing businesses using the law, and we take responsibility for paying all of our bills we owe First, Mr [redacted] is a little confusing as well as confused when it comes to the legal obligations of a Title II and III covered entityTitle II only applies to State and local governments and is therefore irrelevant to this conversationMr [redacted] is certainly aware of thatTitle III covers businesses and non-profits that serve the publicThis would be the only category we would fall under In the response provided Mr [redacted] correctly indicates that providing written materials for individuals with hearing loss would be appropriate accommodationAll of what we do is written with the exception of demonstrating, and test driving of vehiclesThe customer needed no assistance in thatAccording to Mr [redacted] on August 17, at 5:Mr [redacted] contacted Language People stating "he was having difficulty understanding the dealership they came in to finalize the contracts with his wife's new car purchase and get some paperwork about a refund for registration." I'm having difficulty even understanding this sentenceAs a matter of fact, Mr [redacted] purchased the car and signed all documents with complete understanding of them on August 14, They went over the contracts with Mr [redacted] and the visit on August 17th was for clarification of some itemsThis customer had no issue understanding their written agreements on August 14thHe and his wife had finalized their contracts prior to this visitWe had been able to conduct this entire transaction in writing with no issue in understanding The next item Mr [redacted] addresses is my suggestion that the customer use VRSHe indicates that would be fraudIt was my understanding that one conversation had taken place between Levi and the customer when the customer was not presentThis may have been a mistake in understanding the situation as Mr [redacted] indicated Mr [redacted] indicates the customer was not "able to understand" and as a result of their assistance we sold a carThis is just untrueAs stated above the customer purchased this car on August 14th not on August 17thThis deal was carried out with written communication between our employees and Mr [redacted] We have sheets of paper discussing everything from heated seats and window tint to registrationThe customer indicated in writing for us to email or text him so he could communicateHe also indicated he had a relay service for us to call himIt would appear we were effectively communicating with Mr [redacted] As Mr [redacted] point out, we are not required to provide sign language interpretation but can provide written materialHe indicates most businesses would pick up a phone and try to resolve somethingWe did pick up a phone and it took several weeks to have a phone conversationDuring this conversation I indicated we had not agreed nor contracted to pay $for their servicesI told them we had accommodated the individual's disability by writing out explanation when requestedToday I had a lengthy conversation with Mr [redacted] I offered him $as a referral to come to an equitable agreementMr [redacted] refused it and wanted us to pay $113.40, giving us their usual 40% discount In closing, we had effective communication in writing with the customer pursuant to his written requestThe company, Language People, gives individuals cards for services like LP Connect, probably indicating the services are free and that someone else will pay for themI contacted the US Department of Justice and they told us that sometimes a customer can choose to use an alternative method of communication such as sign language, but that does not make it our responsibilityIt may be as a convenience to the individual and they choose to use a service like Language People or to continue using writing as they had beenIt appears that Mr [redacted] believes that threatening and insulting us will lead to a fair and equitable resolution

Initial Business Response / [redacted] (1000, 5, 2016/04/28) */ Dear Ms [redacted] , I wanted to inform you that Mansfield Medical Clinic, and Dr [redacted] , D.Ohave removed their complaint regarding Language People IncI have cc'd Ms [redacted] ***, the Office Manager for Mansfield Medical Clinic above Thank you for your attention to this matter Initial Consumer Rebuttal / [redacted] (2000, 7, 2016/04/28) */ (The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)

Thank you for your letter of August 1, 2016, and Language PeopleIncunderstands the hard nature of our work and people such as yourself and we look forward to a speedy resolution of this immediately
First let me respond by stating thatMr*** has presented some statements that are not
factual and I believe that he does not have the proper information given to him because I am confident that an honest person, who knows the law and has full complete knowledge of the situation would know that they have full responsibility to pay for the services
Language People is a translations company, an interpreting agency and several other community based programs as well in its realm of services it offersI am stating that in this particular situation one of its sister companies is called LP Connectthis is a program where deaf people are given a membership card and on that card is an digit number, deaf people use this card when going to businesses, doctors, lawyers office, banks, hospitals police, fire, social security office, children's school meetings etc
RE: Legal obligation under Title II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable law to provide interpretive service for the Deaf
Many people and organizations are not aware of their legal responsibilities under Federal and State law as it pertains to the Americans with Disabilities ActAccording to the US Department of justice Civil Rights Division Disability- Rights Division the ADA requires that title II entities (State and local governments) and title III entities (businesses and nonprofit organizations that serve the public) communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilitiesTitle III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (AIDA) requires businesses open to the public to ensure that individuals with a disability have equal access to all that the businesses have to offerADA Title III covers a wide range of places of public accommodation, including retail stores and the wide range of service businesses such as hotels, theatres, restaurants, doctors' and lawyers' offices, optometrists, dentists, banks, insurance .agencies, museums, parks, libraries, day care centers, recreational programs, social service agencies, and private schoolsIt covers both profit and non-profit organizationsUnlike the employment section of the ADA, which only applies to employers with or more employees, ADA Title III applies to all businesses, regardless of size
The goal is to ensure that communication with people with these disabilities is equally effective as communication with people without disabilitiesFor people who are deaf, have hearing loss this includes providing a-qualified notetaker; a qualified sign language interpreter, oral interpreter, cued-speech interpreter or tactile interpreter; real-time captioning; written materials; or a printed script of a stock speech (such as given on a museum 'or historic house tour)A 'qualified" interpreter means someone who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively understanding what the person with the disability is saying) and expressively (i.e having the skill needed to convey information back to that person) using any necessary specialized vocabularyThese services can be provided through a Video remote interpreting (VRI) is a fee-based service that uses video conferencing technology to access an off-site interpreter to provide real-time sign language or interpreting services for conversations between hearing people and people who are deaf or have hearing lossThe new regulations give covered entities the choice of using VRI or on-site interpreters in situations where either would be effectiveVRI can be especially useful in rural areas where on-site interpreters may be difficult to obtainAdditionally, there may be some cost advantages in using VIII in certain circumstancesCovered entities must provide aids and services when needed to communicate effectively with people who have communication disabilitiesA person's method(s) of communication are also keyFor example, sign language interpreters are effective only for people who use sign languageHistorically, many covered entities have expected a person who uses sign language to bring a family member or friend to interpret for him or herThese people often lacked the impartiality and specialized vocabulary needed to interpret effectively and accuratelyIt was particularly problematic to use people's children as interpretersThe ADA places responsibility for providing effective communication, including the use of interpreters, directly on covered entitiesThey cannot require a person to bring someone to interpret for him or herWhen choosing an aid or service, title II entities are required to give primary consideration to the choice or aid or service requested by the person who has a communication disabilityThe state of local government must honor the person's choice unless (.....) that another equally effective means of communication is available, or that the use of the means chosen would result in a fundamental altercation or in an undue burdenTitle III means entities are encouraged to consult with the person with a disability to discuss what aid or service is appropriateThe goal is to provide an aid or service that will be effective, given the nature of what is being communicated and the person's method of communicating
Language People Inc, (LP) is a company that provides Interpretive services including American Sign Language (ASL) interpretation via in person interpretation and VRI remote serviceYou received an invoice from LP because a disabled Deaf or Hard of Hearing individual one into your business and requested a Sign Language interpreter and after refusing or failing to provide a Sign Language Interpreter as dictated by Federal law, the individual used a VRI service provided by Language People to help you meet your obligations under the ADA instead of denying the customer service in your business establishment avoiding potential legal ramifications related to the denial a accommodations as required by the ADASince Language People, Incprovided services on your behalf in order to help you meet your obligations under the ADALanguage People is entitled to recover from you the reasonable value of its services under several legal theories including implied contract and Quantum Meruit theoriesThe ADA .implementing regulations impose an obligation on public accommodation to provide effective communication to companions, who are individuals with disabilities, U.S.C (a), (b)(3)(A)(ii)Health providers who receive federal funds must "provide appropriate auxiliary aids to persons with impaired sensory...skills, where necessary to afford such persons an equal opportunity to benefit from the service in question." C.F.R 84.52(d)"Auxiliary aids may include brailed and taped material, interpreters, and other aids for persons with impaired hearing or vision
Under a Quantum Meruit and Unjust Enrichment theories of recovery if no express contract for services exists, the party providing services can recover the reasonable fees for providing those servicesQuantum Meruit or quasi-contractual recovery rests upon the equitable theory that a contract to pay for services rendered is implied by law for reasons of justiceSee e.gI Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th ed, 1987) contracts sections 12, page " (Hedging Concepts Inc vFirst Alliance Mprtgage Co (1996) Cal App 4th 1410, 1914.) Even if the party providing services nevertheless may receive restitution for the unjust enrichment of the other by bringing an action in quasi contract (a contract implied in law) for reasonable value of services rendered, where there was an expectation that the service would be paid for and it would be unjust for the other party to receive the benefit of the services without paying compensation"The classis formulation concerning the measure of recovery in quantum meruit is found in Palmer vGredd (1967), Cal2d The measure of recovery in quantum meruit is the reasonable value of the services rendered provided they were pf direct benefit to the defendantSee producers Cotton Oil Co vsAmstar Corp (1988) Cal app 3d 638,
Since you operate a business open to the public you are required to provide reasonable accommodations for the Deaf by providing an interpreter for the costumer or patient
You derived a benefit from the customer or patient when they conducted business with you and would therefore be unjust for you to receive the benefit of their business without compensating the interpreter who assisted you in your business and in complying with your legal obligations to comply with the ADAAs such, Language People, Incis entitled to receive payment from you for services rendered on your behalfIn this instance on August 17, at 5:pm we received a call at Language People from Harold ***, he was having difficulty understanding the dealership they came in to finalize the contracts with his wife's new car purchase and get some paperwork about a refund for registrationOur Interpreter who handled this call is known as Interpreter 7071, who then read to 'the hearing party at the dealership who identified himself as Levi Sebastian or SebestyenAs always, the interpreter read the discourse and asked for approval for our services and explained that an invoice would be sentThe consent was granted by the dealership's representative Levi at Liberty GMCUnder those premises and guidelines the services were renderedThe dealership name, address and contact Information was provided to us for billing
Now I would like to address the statement that Mr*** makes"He chose this service instead of one of the free options paid for by the FCCI personally was executive of one of the previous VRS companies funded by the FCCLet Me state here very clearly that Mr*** was present at the dealership in person in the same room with Levi, it is considered FRAUD if the call had been placed through a VRS provider (Video Relay Services) the FCC specifically does not and will not pay for any call if the originating call and end point are in the same locality, same roomThe F.C.Cpays for calls from one point to another that are not in the same roomSo Mr*** did not do that because that is not allowed no VRS company should allow this even though some do and get away with it but the FCC has measures to catch such fraudulent behaviors and then arrests are madeIf you will note very carefully the customer was not able to understand and as a result of our assistance the dealership sold a vehicle to this party, interpretation was done, we have paid the interpreter for the work done and you made your services without any barriers because we provided the services with the information that we would be paidLanguage People has been honorable, explained to your business location everything that I have put in writing hereI have never seen a message from this dealership or for discussions as to the billLanguage People offers everyone and it is on the actual bill itself to contact us and we have a 'Fee For Service Agreement" which will remove 40% off the invoice, further we work with businesses and the deaf community to stop the lawsuit, make sure accessible services are rendered and we have spent millions of dollars making a platform so that this can be easily done without individuals paying the minimum two hour standard fees with mileage, but for services rendered where a person is billed from the start to the end of services
Our desired resolution: Is that the bill be paid, or a Fee For Service Agreement entered into which binds the dealership in no way, it merely says that should they use our services these are the prices they would be charged and it's at 40% off
In closing its commendable that you can make available services for sign language interpretation but did not contract with Language People, but when we asked if you had anyone available now the response was no and that you would use this service a "verbal representation"Most businesses pick up a phone and try to resolve somethingIn addition to sending monthly bills and invoices, we sent, one letter, followed by second letter prior to taking action because we know that most people are not educated and knowledgeable with the responsibilities under the ADA and Civil Rights laws
Please note that you mislabeled us as a Video Relay company we are not that we are a Video Remote Interpreting Service and receive no federal funds or state funds because these are for in business interpreting services, not over the telephone from afar
In closing, I look forward to a fair and equitable resolution(Business response.pdf)

(The consumer indicated he/she DID NOT accept the response from the business.)
Mr. [redacted]'s response was not completely factual and is also extremely disingenuous. He believes that if I were an "honest" person, and knows the law, and the situation I would pay his bill. In response I am an extremely honest person, have knowledge of the law, not comparable to an individual that has built a business of suing businesses using the law, and we take responsibility for paying all of our bills we owe.
First, Mr. [redacted] is a little confusing as well as confused when it comes to the legal obligations of a Title II and III covered entity. Title II only applies to State and local governments and is therefore irrelevant to this conversation. Mr. [redacted] is certainly aware of that. Title III covers businesses and non-profits that serve the public. This would be the only category we would fall under.
In the response provided Mr. [redacted] correctly indicates that providing written materials for individuals with hearing loss would be appropriate accommodation. All of what we do is written with the exception of demonstrating, and test driving of vehicles. The customer needed no assistance in that. According to Mr. [redacted] on August 17, 2015 at 5:03 Mr. [redacted] contacted Language People stating "he was having difficulty understanding the dealership they came in to finalize the contracts with his wife's new car purchase and get some paperwork about a refund for registration." I'm having difficulty even understanding this sentence. As a matter of fact, Mr. [redacted] purchased the car and signed all documents with complete understanding of them on August 14, 2015. They went over the contracts with Mr. [redacted] and the visit on August 17th was for clarification of some items. This customer had no issue understanding their written agreements on August 14th. He and his wife had finalized their contracts prior to this visit. We had been able to conduct this entire transaction in writing with no issue in understanding.
The next item Mr. [redacted] addresses is my suggestion that the customer use VRS. He indicates that would be fraud. It was my understanding that one conversation had taken place between Levi and the customer when the customer was not present. This may have been a mistake in understanding the situation as Mr. [redacted] indicated.
Mr. [redacted] indicates the customer was not "able to understand" and as a result of their assistance we sold a car. This is just untrue. As stated above the customer purchased this car on August 14th not on August 17th. This deal was carried out with written communication between our employees and Mr. [redacted]. We have sheets of paper discussing everything from heated seats and window tint to registration. The customer indicated in writing for us to email or text him so he could communicate. He also indicated he had a relay service for us to call him. It would appear we were effectively communicating with Mr. [redacted].
As Mr. [redacted] point out, we are not required to provide sign language interpretation but can provide written material. He indicates most businesses would pick up a phone and try to resolve something. We did pick up a phone and it took several weeks to have a phone conversation. During this conversation I indicated we had not agreed nor contracted to pay $189 for their services. I told them we had accommodated the individual's disability by writing out explanation when requested. Today I had a lengthy conversation with Mr. [redacted] I offered him $100 as a referral to come to an equitable agreement. Mr. [redacted] refused it and wanted us to pay $113.40, giving us their usual 40% discount.
In closing, we had effective communication in writing with the customer pursuant to his written request. The company, Language People, gives individuals cards for services like LP Connect, probably indicating the services are free and that someone else will pay for them. I contacted the US Department of Justice and they told us that sometimes a customer can choose to use an alternative method of communication such as sign language, but that does not make it our responsibility. It may be as a convenience to the individual and they choose to use a service like Language People or to continue using writing as they had been. It appears that Mr. [redacted] believes that threatening and insulting us will lead to a fair and equitable resolution.

I am not going to argue the interpretations of Mr. [redacted]. there were a few misrepresentations in his response. It is clear that there is a vast contrast in beliefs and theories. However Mr [redacted] did offer $100,00 and I told him that I was not authorized to accept that as we go 40% as the maximum; however I did state that 1 would take it up with the C.E.O of the company who has the authority to discount it further and as he stated in his letter he offered the $100.00 as payment in full. The C.E.O. has advised me that she is accepting that settlement as payment in full! We look forward to receiving the payment promptly, Therefore this written response is to confirm that acceptance.

Initial Business Response /* (1000, 5, 2016/04/28) */
Dear Ms. [redacted],
I wanted to inform you that Mansfield Medical Clinic, and Dr. [redacted], D.O. have removed their complaint regarding Language People Inc. I have cc'd Ms. [redacted], the Office Manager for Mansfield Medical Clinic...

above.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Initial Consumer Rebuttal /* (2000, 7, 2016/04/28) */
(The consumer indicated he/she ACCEPTED the response from the business.)