Rule 332

CPC compatible answers to the question, “How was your day?” (An on-going series):

Well, first thing this morning… wait, did you cut your hair? It is so cute! When did you do it?

Uncle Dale’s “You Probably Should Know”: Living Wills

Hey everyone!  So last week a former student/current rocking interpreter asked me over Facebook how to interpret the term “Living Will.” This of course set off a firestorm of opinions on leaving it to the lawyer/doctor/other person to explain what is means or the Deaf client to ask what it means.

Totally not getting into that discussion.

But, I will say it never hurts to know what it means yourself, because you are going to have to interpret it (no matter who digs for the deeper meaning), and if you are relying on an attorney to say anything that anyone but another attorney would understand you have not met many of us!  We suck at explaining… bad… way bad!

Anyway, the real problem with the term “Living Will” is that if four people say it there will be seven different meanings intended–“Living Will” is the Aloha of testamentary terminology, people use it to mean everything.

So lets go through what we are talking about: What happens to my stuff after I die and myself while I die.

Trusts.

There are two kinds, Intervivos and Testamentary. Intervivos holds your stuff while you are alive and is usually revocable (you can change it or get rid of it while you are alive) but becomes irrevocable when you die… cuz you’re dead.  Testamentary Trust are set up by another instrument, like a Will, and only are declared after you die.

Both of them hold your stuff as if they were legally a person.  Trusts are usually set up with specific rules like “this is to be used for my kids education” and so living or dead that is what the trust can be used for.  Most are time limited so if anything happens to you the Trust will do its thing until the kids are 22 or 23-years-old (I never advise a client to make the Trust distribute is corpus to a 21-year-old because I knew me when I was 21-years-old).  Lots of people want Intervivos Trusts, fewer people need them.  The tax advantages only kick in north of 5 million dollars.  They are good for multiple marriages and kids from each marriage.  Testamentary Trust established by a Will are good for people with young kids.

A Will.

Like a “Last Will and Testament” Will.  This is good for making sure all your stuff gets to the people who you want it to go to when you die.  These days most stuff passes through an “extra-testamentary” document–as a beneficiary of an insurance policy or joint accounts or joint tenancy in the ownership of a house. A Will catches everything else so there is no dispute as to who gets the stuff.

A Living Will.

When people say Living Will they could mean any number of Advanced Directives (directions you give before something happens).  An ACTUAL Living Will gives instructions of what you want done or not done medically if you are unconscious or otherwise unable to give competent instructions as to your wishes.

A Medical Power of Attorney or Healthcare Proxy (sometimes called a Living Will) designates a person to relay your wishes is for some reason you cannot do it yourself.  Not their wishes for you but having told them what you want they accept the responsibility to relay your wishes.

Then there is a DNR-Do Not Resuscitate.  Just like it sounds, if certain conditions are present just let me go.

There you go! and remember Uncle Dale’s Rule may be informative but it is not a substitute for legal advice.  If you want information please talk to a lawyer in your area.

 

Rule 326

Things interpreters think but probably should not say (an on-going series):

This termination letter is beautifully written… but, understand where is says, “ceasing your duties as an employee” the most semantically correct sign for that really just equals “fired.”  And where it says “immeadate separation,” that sign also basically means “fired.” Humm. “Transfer of all work related duties,” uses the sign, “fired.” Yep, and like three more of these euphemisms are expressed in ASL using a sign that semantically equates to “fired.”  
Beautifully written though. 

Uncle Dale’s “You Probably Should Know”: Employee vs Independent Contractor (MLM)

I got this question a bunch this week. Many people who are Deaf and a few interpreters are outraged because there is a multi-level marketing convention in town and it has refused to provide interpreters because it says that the Deaf attendees are not “employees.” The MLM is right, they are not employees-but 100% wrong that it does not need to provide interpreters for them.

If you are not familiar with the idea of an MLM, it’s one of those companies that sells soap or skin care products or essential oils or found some awful tasting fruit that they now sell as a health drink.  They don’t sell them from stores or on-line. One person gets a few sales reps “under” them or in their “downline” who then get people “downline” from them and so on and so on… its a huge business.  

Anyway.  Most of these companies are run by lovely people, but every now and again I run into this issue.  A Deaf person joins the group as a sales rep and buys a ticket to a MLM convention (where they have motivational speakers and sales trainings and opportunities to network and build your business) as all sales reps are encouraged to do.  The person who is Deaf requests an interpreter and the MLM says no.  The MLM doesn’t believe it has to because, as I said, the person who is Deaf does not “work” for the MLM; the person who is Deaf is not their “employee.”  The MLM is right.  The person who is Deaf is an independent contractor.  If they try to force the issue using Title I the person who is Deaf will lose because Title I does not apply.

But, if you are not an employee you are “the public” and that falls under Title III.  Once a person who is Deaf bought a ticket to the MLM event that person became a “qualified person with a disability” under Title III (I know the who disability thing leaves a bad taste in your mouth–I wrote a paper on it, me too–but if you want to use the ADA…).  A person with a disability because the Deaf person is… well… Deaf, and qualified because a person is qualified to attend the MLM event if that person has a ticket to the event.  So when the MLM said it would not provide interpreters the person who is Deaf got the last thing they needed to have “standing” (the legal ability) to sue.

[t]o establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she has suffered an ‘injury-in-fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to being merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by the relief requested. Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277, 1283 (10th Cir. 2004).

MLM’s at this point will scream and cry that is not on the list of “places of public accommodation” that is contained within Title III, it is not a store nor does it maintain a place that “accommodates” the “public” (not the same thing as a reasonable accommodation— different thing/similar name… different discussion for a different time).

Again, the MLM is right.  It is not on the list of “places of public accommodation” found in Title III.  But the convention center it is using for the convention is.

“Oh,” you say, “so the convention center must provide the interpreter?”  Nope. Well, the MLM can allocate the responsibility to provide interpreters to the convention center by contract… but usually the convention center will be responsible for the physical accessibility (more permanent structures) but the MLM is “operating” the venue (selling tickets, controlling access…) so the MLM would be responsible for non-structural access (psst. interpreters).

The person who is Deaf paid a price to attend the conference, the conference is held in statutorily defined place of public accommodation and the place public accommodation is operated, at least for the duration of the conference by the MLM, which Title III says makes the MLM, for the time frame of the conference at defacto public accommodation (even if the “lease” of the space is for a very short time).

So an “independent contractor” sales rep has the ability to enforce the ADA against an MLM using Title III, not because the person who is Deaf is an independent contractor… but because the person is NOT an employee, just a qualified member of the public.

I included a case that shows how it all works.

Jensen v United First Financial

http://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/utah/utdce/2:2009cv00543/70925/20/0.pdf?ts=1411581661

This blog and the attached vlog are informational but not meant to be legal advice or replace discussing your situation with a licensed attorney in your area.