The Metro: Deaf volunteers say they were excluded at Comerica Park. A judge says their case can proceed

It began at Comerica Park during a summer Tigers game — lights bright against the sky, fans filling the stands, the rhythm of the game unfolding.

For deaf and hard-of-hearing volunteers from Detroit’s DAD Foundation, the energy was palpable, even if the experience of the ballpark was not defined by sound. They relied on sight and movement as they staffed a concession stand to raise money for their nonprofit.

They were trained for the job, but no one provided interpreters or signs to help them communicate with customers. After a confusing encounter with a secret shopper, they were told not to come back. 

Now the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice has taken the case to court. They argue that what happened is discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last month, a federal judge said their lawsuit can move forward. That means their claims under the ADA warrant a complete examination.

Although this happened at a baseball game at a popular stadium in Detroit, the story asks something bigger than baseball. What does access look like in a world built around sound? 

Attorney Liz Jacob from the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice joined Robyn Vincent on The Metro to discuss what this ruling could mean for deaf and hard-of-hearing people across the country. 

Transcript of the conversation below.

Robyn Vincent, co-host of The Metro: Liz, welcome back to The Metro.

Attorney Liz Jacob: Thanks so much for having me. 

Robyn: And a note before we begin: radio is a hearing-based medium, and that’s part of the problem when we talk about access. So a full transcript of this story will be available online, because access starts with how we tell the story itself.

Now. Liz, before we get to the law, can you take us to that night at Comerica Park? What did communication look like for your clients? What was missing, and how did that absence shape everything that followed?

Liz: Absolutely, and let me just start off by talking a little bit about our clients. We have an amazing group of clients here who are all people who, themselves, are deaf and hard of hearing and are a part of an organization, the DAD Foundation, that actually advocates for the rights, needs, and community for deaf and hard of hearing people. 

So participation in this program at Comerica Park was so important to our clients, it gave them a chance to get to be a part of game day, to get to volunteer during that excitement down at the stadium, and to be able to support their nonprofit for their volunteer work at the stadium, they were able to get a donation for the DAD Foundation, a community group that they care about that supports their needs and allows them to thrive in the community. 

All the volunteers went through a training offered by the vendor services organization at Comerica Park. They understood the role, and they were ready to participate. What was missing, Robyn, was the chance for them to participate equally. The organization knew that they were deaf, they knew that the volunteers were hard of hearing. They knew that they needed accommodations in order to thrive in the role, but they weren’t provided that. They weren’t given even the barest minimum of accommodation required under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which in this case could be signage. It could be having a sign language interpreter on site with the volunteers. It would also include training a secret shopper to know that these individuals volunteering at the concession stand are deaf and hard of hearing, and they should adjust the way they communicate with them accordingly. 

They weren’t provided with those accommodations, and that broke down communication.

Robyn: Liz, let’s talk more about what the law actually requires, because the Americans with Disabilities Act does talk about effective communication, and you have just given us some examples of what was missing. Who decides which aids or services are appropriate?

Liz: Great question. So the aids and services required should be centered around the needs of the people who have the disability. So the Americans with Disability Act considers the individualized needs of the folks who have the disability. So in this case, folks who are deaf and hard of hearing, there are really well-understood and accepted accommodations for folks who have this particular disability. In this case, signage, access to an interpreter, are considered reasonable accommodations regularly offered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Robyn: And these were all missing in this situation. Now, Liz, this case is a little unusual, because the people at the center of it weren’t paid workers. They were volunteers. That meant the usual workplace protections under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act didn’t apply. Instead, you’re arguing this falls under Title III, and that’s the part of the law that covers public spaces. So that means restaurants, stores and stadiums, like Comerica Park, and it guarantees equal access for everyone, not just employees. Why does that distinction matter? What does it reveal about how the Americans with Disabilities Act protects people who contribute to public life in ways that, say, aren’t defined as work?

Liz: Great question. So, one of the really important things about the Americans with Disabilities Act is that it underscores a congressional intent to make public life accessible to people with disabilities. Work is one part of public life, that’s why it’s captured under Title I of the act, but Title III was really an important intention from Congress to expand access to the general public, to people with disabilities, it was a recognition that we have built so many inaccessible spaces in our world that do not allow people with disabilities to show up fully and be able to participate. So Title III, and the way that we’re trying to push the court to understand this issue, is that Title III really covers fair and equal access to any place of public accommodation. Those are spaces like Comerica Park that are open to the general public. And we’re pushing the court here to see that when we say public accommodation, we don’t just mean physical access to the stadium. We mean access to all programs offered at the stadium to the general public. That’s what we have here, a program offered generally to any nonprofit in the public in fact, our clients were invited to participate in this program. And when you’re going to offer that kind of public-facing program, you need to make it accessible to everyone. Folks should not be denied the right to participate in these programs just because they have disabilities. 

The Americans with Disabilities Act shifted that responsibility onto these private organizations that are going to host events open to the public, programs and services open to the public. It puts the onus on the private actors then to make those spaces accessible to everyone.

Robyn: So, what I’m hearing from you is that there needs to be a higher threshold of responsibility when it comes to these organizations and how they’re accommodating people with disabilities. I want to zoom out, because we often talk about sound in stadiums, but inclusion is visual and it’s linguistic. Where do you see systemic breakdowns across sports venues when it comes to deaf culture and ASL as a language,

Liz: It’s a great question, Robyn. What we have heard from our clients and other members of the deaf and hard of hearing community is that it’s not just being able to see the game played, it’s also being able to hear and understand that is such a big part of the experience that they’re not able to access, right? We have commentators sharing what’s happening play by play on the field. We have folks talking in their seats. Those are all parts of the experience that could be made more accessible. Having sign language interpreters who are actually breaking down commentary during games is one part of the experience that could be made better. And in this case, we’re talking about the ability to participate in that full game day experience. It’s not just what’s happening on the field. A big part of game day is built around the concession stands, getting to enjoy a hot dog with friends, getting to build camaraderie with fellow volunteers as you serve those concessions. That’s a really important part of access on game day, too. 

So, being able to make sure folks can participate fully in the experience on game day, whether that’s as a spectator or as a member of the concession stands, is so important to building a better vision of full inclusion for every person who’s in that stadium on game day.

Robyn: Let’s contextualize this beyond game day, if we could. Liz, because the data show a durable employment gap: roughly half of deaf adults are employed, and that’s compared with about 70% of hearing adults. And I should note, many of the jobs deaf people have are outside the traditional workforce, and those positions may differ a lot when it comes to quality, hours, or stability. Liz, when a public venue fails to provide interpreters or visual communication and then removes deaf volunteers, how would you say that single access failure ripples into the workforce?

Liz: It’s a great question, Robyn. So what we have heard from our clients is that participation in this volunteer program is so important, exactly for the reason that you’re underscoring. It is so hard for members of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community to be able to access dignified, meaningful work. And these volunteer roles are actually really important because it gives them work experience, it allows them to build their resume, get experience on the ground when it’s so hard for them to be able to access those jobs. 

So participation in these programs are important. It shows that they have the ability to do it. It helps them build their skills and experience, and it allows them to have a leg up the next time they go to apply for a job. That’s also why having an experience that like this, that was so hurtful, so stressful and so distressing during a volunteer experience, also sets our clients back a lot. It makes them feel yet again, like spaces are not built for them, like it’s yet again so difficult for them to find an accessible opportunity that how can they then find a job that’s going to accept them or build the accommodations that they need. 

So that’s why it’s so critical that we fight these inaccessible spaces even when they’re in a volunteer context, because for our clients, they matter. They’re the experiences that allow them to build their lives that push them closer to dignified work. And it shows us that building meaningful, dignified employment opportunities for deaf people also has to start with their other experiences in the community, their experiences as a volunteer, their experiences with fellow volunteers, where they’re building community and building skills, are just as important if we’re taking a full person approach, and that’s why we need to push for the civil rights of folks with disabilities at every level. We need to keep up with the fight, whether it’s a full time job or a volunteer employment opportunity, because those are the experiences that define people’s lives. Those are the experiences that set the tone for the spaces that they can access next.

Robyn: Liz, this has me wondering, though, about Comerica Park, about the Detroit Tigers, what responsibilities do teams and venue operators have when contractors are running concessions, where does accountability live in these multi-party arrangements?

Liz: This case, I think, is highlighting the fact that there are so many different actors who control the experience on game day, who run the concession stands and who impact the abilities of the general public to be able to access the space. 

So for Comerica Park and for the Detroit Tigers, they have a powerful opportunity now to be in solidarity with our clients, with members of the deaf and hard of hearing community, and actually hold their contractors accountable. 

These are not just things that would be nice to do. These are legal requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act that we have here in Michigan. So there’s an opportunity now for the Detroit Tigers in Comerica Park to hold their vendors accountable to the law and to making sure that they are inclusive and accessible to the community. 

So we hope the Detroit Tigers and Comerica Park will join us in holding these vendors accountable and set a better standard going forward for all their vendors to make sure that everyone, regardless of their level of ability, is able to enjoy all of the programs offered on game day.

Robyn: Liz, let’s stay on game day. What would meaningful compliance look like next opening day. In other words, how do we measure success beyond a settlement?

Liz: So for our clients and for other people who are deaf and hard of hearing, Compliance would look like starting at the very beginning. When they’re invited into these nonprofit programs at Comerica Park, they receive training that’s accessible. They have sign language interpreters at the trainings. They’re given visual tools and resources to allow them to get correctly trained up and have access to a training that they can fully understand and participate in. 

Then when they’re there on game day serving concessions, they have signage that makes it clear that the folks working in the stand that day are deaf and hard of hearing, so that folks who are coming up to the concession stand know how to better communicate, and they have the resources to do it. Maybe there’s a handwritten option or a digital tool that allows them to place their order, or they’re able to point or reference an easily accessible menu to show a deaf or hard of hearing person what they’d like to order. 

In addition, there could be sign language interpreters available at the concession stands that have deaf and hard-of-hearing volunteers so they can have full conversations with participants. And if you get to be a part of game day in that way, you know, sharing a reaction to the game, being able to talk about someone’s order, that would look like much fuller inclusion to be able to provide them the same opportunities that any other volunteer at that concession stand is able to have.

Robyn: Liz many workplaces and public programs are what advocates call hearing-led, and this may be the first time that some people listening to this conversation right now have ever even heard that term, which means places where hearing people set the tone, the systems and the language when those organizations want to do better, whether it’s Comerica Park or someplace else. What should that look like from the start? How do you co-design access with deaf communities in mind?

Liz: So, organizations like our client, the dad Foundation, are great examples of partners in doing that work and thinking about what it looks like to actually center and prioritize the needs of the deaf and hard-of-hearing community. So there are organizations like the Dad Foundation that are really excited to have those conversations that already have in their membership, tons and tons of Deaf folks who would like to be a part of those conversations, who know what they need and want to help shape spaces. 

So, my first invitation to folks who are thinking about, how can you shift a hearing-led space is, one, work in partnership and in solidarity with people who are in the deaf and hard of hearing community, communicate with them, understand their needs, and then take that forward into the design of your workplace, your community or your public space. The other option to think about too, is, as hearing people, we have privilege being able to think about how we experience space, when we can hear sound, hear voices and hear noises in our environment, and then unpack those privileges. What would allow someone to experience that space if they couldn’t hear what would allow someone to participate if they couldn’t understand the words that were being spoken? Whether that’s shifting to sign language to written tools to visual tools, there are changes we can all make when we consider our hearing privileges, and how if someone didn’t have those privileges, they could better access that space.

Robyn: Finally, Liz, I have a question about WDET, and radio more broadly, because radio is, of course, an audio-first medium. What do you want from newsrooms covering deaf stories beyond transcripts, so that coverage itself doesn’t replicate the barriers you’re fighting in court right now?

Liz: Great question. Being able to think about multimedia stories is a way to meet the needs of our Deaf community members. So making sure that we don’t just have audio-first stories, but we’re actually putting together media assets that are kind of whole packages that folks can experience a number of different ways that best meet their needs. 

So, in this case, we could have a version of this story, for instance, where we’re able to be on the ground at Comerica Park or in our offices. Folks are able to see us talk and actually have a live sign language interpreter throughout the whole conversation, being able to have a visual story that, instead of using any audio, just communicates through graphics and other kinds of written texts and tools. Being able to think about a multiplicity of ways to tell a single story allows it to be so much more accessible and so much more inclusive to audiences who might not be able to access what we have right now of a radio story, of a story relying entirely on audio.

Robyn: Attorney Liz Jacob with the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice. Liz, thank you so much for joining me on The Metro.

Liz: Thanks for your time today.