766 Interpreters; translations; inability to speak or read English

The Administrative Law Judge did not err in deciding to hold a hearing on the question of whether the Complainant required an interpreter at the same time as the substantive hearing. McCarthy v. Dunargin Wis., LLC (LIRC, 02/28/14).

A party who cannot read English, or who does not read English well, has an obligation to have documents translated. In this case, the Complainant was able to file a complaint, to read or have translated the initial determination, and to take appropriate action to file a timely appeal. She was also able to read or have translated the Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal order, and she filed a timely petition for review. There was no reason to believe that the Complainant was not capable of understanding, or gaining understanding of, the hearing notice, not withstanding her lack of facility with English. Her failure to do so did not provide her with good cause for missing the hearing. Accordingly, the dismissal of her complaint was affirmed. Further, the Labor and Industry Review Commission denied the Complainant’s request that it issue its decision in this matter in Spanish. If the Complainant had difficulty reading the decision of the Commission, it was her obligation to have it translated. Hernandez v. Sara Lee Corp. (LIRC, 05/21/04).

The Complainant failed to establish that he was deprived of an opportunity for a full and fair hearing because the individual who served as an interpreter for the hearing was not able to communicate effectively in American Sign Language (“ASL”). The record of the hearing established that the interpreter had trained at the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, that she was certified by the National Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, and that she had many years of experience interpreting for the deaf. Further, the Complainant failed to cite even a single specific example of any point on which something said by the interpreter supposedly varied from what he told her. Buska v. Central Bldg. Maint. (LIRC, 09/28/95).

The identity of an interpreter should be noted on the record at the time that he or she is sworn in. The party requesting the interpreter should satisfy himself as to the qualifications of the interpreter by examining the interpreter as to those qualifications prior to the commencement of his testimony. Buska v. Central Bldg. Maint. (LIRC, 09/28/95).

Where an interpreter is present at a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge should note the following for the record: (1) the name of the interpreter, (2) what training, experience and other qualifications the interpreter has, and (3) who requested or arranged for the presence of the interpreter at the hearing. Buska v. Central Bldg. Maint. (LIRC, 04/14/95).