Professor Won’t Wear Device to Accommodate Deaf Student Because It Violates Her Faith

[Ms. Toad]

39. I didn't say it wasn't required to.

You misunderstood my assertion about the student's rights to be a rejection of the faculty member's rights. They are not mutually exclusive.

Ultimately, the University cannot deny the young man an accommodation he needs because of a disability. Alternate accommodations might be to tape and transcribe the lectures, hire a note taker, hire a tutor, hire a live transcriptionist, require the instructor to create Panopto or other video lectures, to present via a live link that would permit him to participate removely, or run a second class with an equivalent instructor.

Depending on the nature of the class, he is entitled to the same benefit the other students receive. If it is a large lecture hall in which no one has the opportunity to be interactive either the taped and transcribed lectures, notetakers or Panopto solution works. If the class is interactive, he is entitled to participate in that. A live transcriptionist (near-simultaneous transcription used frequently for depositions), or a livelink would meet that need.

None of these solutions require the instructor to wear a transmitter, thus accommodating her religious beliefs.

That said, religious accommodations are not required if it places more than a minimal burden on the employer's business - this contrasts relatively sharply with the position regarding disabilities and education - in which case even relatively significant cost is not an excuse not to accommodate. I have not reviewed enough religious accommodation cases to know where the "minimal burden" line falls - but from what I know about educational accommodations, if the two meet head to head (e.g. there are no accommodations that can be implemented to meet both needs), I'm pretty sure it is religion that will lose. The language is much stronger in laws governing disability accommodations in education than those governing religious accommodations by employers.