UPW trial set
on violation
of federal law

The union is accused of ignoring
requests for sign-language
interpreters at its meetings

By Ian Lind
Star-Bulletin

The United Public Workers union faces a jury trial next month on charges of violating federal law by ignoring repeated requests to provide sign language interpreters at union meetings and then retaliating against a UPW member who complained.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit in May 1997 alleging that the union's failure to respond to its deaf members violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The agency is asking penalties of up to $900,000 and a court order requiring interpreters.

The case was filed on behalf of Jason Nomura, a custodian with the Department of Education, and Roberta Chiwa-Tanaka, a house parent at the Statewide Center for Learning Disabilities. Both have been deaf since birth, and sign language is their primary language, court records show.

The trial is scheduled to begin April 6 in U.S. District Court.

UPW tries to blame state

UPW has denied responsibility, saying the union's state director, Gary Rodrigues, interpreted the law to require the state to provide sign language interpreters. But the court has already rejected a UPW move to shift blame to the state, and has ruled that the UPW is subject to requirements of the ADA.

EEOC regional attorney William Tamayo declined to comment because of the trial. UPW attorney Stanford Masui could not be reached for comment.

But in a confidential demand letter sent to UPW in February 1998, and later disclosed in court records, attorney Pamela Rubin said the agency would present "moving testimony regarding the suffering of two individuals treated, again and again, with gross indignity by their union, an organization which readily collected dues from them yet prevented them from enjoying the benefits of union membership."

Rubin criticized UPW for failing to accommodate its deaf members at the same time it represents employees of a facility that educates deaf students and employs deaf staff.

In an initial ruling last month, District Judge Susan Oki Mollway said that Nomura had been discriminated against by the union, and that the agency could attempt to prove at trial that Chiwa-Tanaka also suffered discrimination.

Court records show Nomura contacted his UPW representatives in 1992, and Chiwa-Tanaka in 1994, requesting sign language assistance for meetings called by the union under Section 8 of their contracts with the state and counties.

EEOC charges retaliation

The meetings are considered mandatory for union members, but Nomura and Chiwa-Tanaka said they could not understand what was going on unless the union provided sign language interpreters.

When they requested union assistance, both Nomura and Chiwa-Tanaka were told it was a state problem, not a union responsibility, but the state said the union would have to pay an interpreter because it was a union-sponsored meeting. Court records show the cost of interpreter services generally would be less than $80 a meeting.

As described in court records, Nomura's mother talked to a UPW business agent in early 1996 and was told he would not get a union-provided interpreter because discrimination charges had been filed.

The EEOC calls that illegal retaliation.

Rodrigues said in a sworn deposition that he did not seek legal advice before rejecting the requests from deaf members, although he never attended a training session or spoke with anyone at UPW's parent union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, about ADA requirements.

Rodrigues also said delegates at all AFSCME international conventions are provided sign language interpreters.

UPW made an offer in October to settle the case by paying $65,000 and agreeing to provide signers on request at future meetings, but withdrew the offer after the EEOC insisted on an injunction barring further violations.