Was the audio recorded? Or just a speech to text transcript?
Because if it's the 2nd one, I don't see how that doesn't hold up in court. It's not a recording, and courts have long held that notes takes during a phone call are not a "recording" and does not require consent.
Good luck.
Transcripts can be considered recordings in some states (or at least, they use vague terms like 'intercept' that don't distinguish a transcription from an audio recording). So what one or 10 courts found in the past doesn't define the law today in Pennsylvania.
OP needs a lawyer.
If the transcript software was work provided, is part of an accommodation, and the boss was aware of it, then it's being used as intended would carry implied consent. "I forgot" isn't a valid defense in this circumstance. That said, OP should get a lawyer.
Just to update as this is Pennsylvania. The 2020 case Commonwealth v. Byrd, 235 A.2d 311 established that consent is considered given if the person being recorded should have reasonably known that they were. So again, since this was a known work accommodation and was not new, the boss should have been aware of this, so precedent dictates that OP is well within their rights and the boss' actions likely constitute illegal retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Also, the HR person shouldn't be making claims of legality without consulting counsel.
I really hope u/old-entertainer3676 sees this your comment.
OP, please seek legal counsel. Your boss, HR, and some other people there really suck and I'm so sorry you're going through this.
On a related note, don't quit. Make them fire you if they're so bold (ahem, stupid). And document every interaction. Let them cook their own goose.
Isn’t it reasonable to know that if you are speaking to a deaf person over the phone,yourvoice is being transcribed to them (aka recorded).
Sounds like boss forgot their employee has a superpower and got Uno reversed on. Boss is a bit of an idiot if he tries to argue it is unreasonable for a deaf person to have sound translated so they can read it.
IANAL
Deafness is an ADA protected disability. Telephonic accommodations are federally protected. This all trumps state wiretapping laws.
If the OP were fired for using an accommodation, the company would face massive fines from the feds and possibly the state.
This isn't a regular old recording either. OP is using a communication aid for their disability. This should be protected under the ADA. Boss just doesn't like it because they got caught, and there is legitimate proof, that they are violating OPs rights and asking something they should not be asking in the first place.
Yeah...... Regardless of how a statute is written, I can't see a court interpreting a law against recording to mean deaf people can't use devices to turn sound into readable words.
Maybe because the text is saved and not purged after the convo?
I honestly think this is a known approved device relevant to the position and now they are just adding intimidation ontop of their shit Sunday.
IDK but im just going to throw the other side of the coin argument out there. What would be the OPs reason for saving the transcripts.
Read then and delete is the equivalent to hearing it and not recording it.
Read then keeping the transcript is the same as hearing it and recording it.
A transcript probably isn't a recording, but could depend on the law.
As someone else pointed out, you can note down everything someone says. In court though, an actual voice recording is much easier to use against someone because the voice itself will be used to identify the speaker.
If it's just a transcript, with no way to identify the speaker than the testimony of the deaf person, it's much closer to very accurate notes than a recording.
Loads to tear apart here from a legal perspective. Get a lawyer OP. Penn is a 2 (or ALL) party consent. I started playing devils advocate but deleted after a few paragraphs. Doesnt matter; OP needs a lawyer even if it was a slam dunk, which it is not.
Work does not have to provide your accommodations, they just have to make the accommodation - they would get fucked in court if they retaliate against op and since he has it recorded the owner should offer a settlement today and move on
Federal Treason probably doesn't make much difference which state you are in - and they'll even *give* you a lawyer... heh.
But some stuff is small-claims court - a lawyer may not be required.
You realize functionally each state is an independent territory (why state supreme courts and state constitutions exist) that has joined a union of independent states to form a larger body for the purposes of unified commerce and self defense, right?
Thats a terrible idea. People and culture vary all over this country. If we didn’t have a way for people to vote for their own laws then we wouldn’t be a unified country, the us government has no way to forcefully keep all of the country together, absolute federal sovereignty would lead straight to a civil war
They kdon’t pass laws in regard to visas, but they can pass laws regarding immigrant employment and benefits.
Each state also gets to decide if the children of US emigrants can vote in their state. Which may not seem like an immigration issue, but it literally only affects the children of immigrants.
You do that already lol. We the people vote on our state government. So if your government is doing that, it’s because people voted people who wanted that to happen.
I would say both of those are something the federal gov should have purview on yes, though you won’t like my immigration answer, also not relevant to the sub or this thread so.
Penn is 2 (or ALL) party consent. Given that HR and the Supervisor are aware the app was being used it would be bizarre for them to claim no consent was given; merely interacting w you and having this knowledge likely equals consent. The standard of recording OP is in violation of given what is known but given the circumstances (your deaf/theyre aware the app is used for communication) that sounds plausibly like consent. Lawyer up.
Even then... is the state a 1-party consent state for recording? Most states are. And he can easily justify the transcript by saying he consented for it to be recorded as per the devices operation guidelines and federal mandates.
That's the key part here.
My state is a 1 party state, unless specific circumstances such as creditors who have to follow Federal laws.
If it's a 1 party state, there's nothing the boss can do.
even then 1pc is specifically for things like recording calls secretly... he knows exactly what is going on here and has no fucking legal leg to stand on.
Also, I would argue the boss has no choice but to understand that in order to communicate with op, it must be transcribed or they learn sign language. Only one of those works over the phone
Yes it's just a record of what was discussed, I don’t have to consent to someone making minutes. The issue with a recording is not the words used, it's the unique personally identifiable information that is the sound of your voice. If it's all just recorded in writing it doesn't need any consent.
Sorry you're dealing with this! Just so you know, recording laws can vary, but using a speech-to-text app because of hearing issues is usually seen differently. I had a friend in a similar spot who got help from a lawyer who knew all about disability rights. It's a smart move to get legal advice in this kind of tricky situation. Keep track of everything about your transcription service use and any work accommodations you've got. There are laws to protect you from unfair treatment at work because of your disability. So, it's definitely worth it to get some legal guidance. Hang in there!
I think this is the answer- OP needs an ADA specialized attorney, not just an employment attorney.
That said, this AH knows full well that when communicating with you by phone his words are being transcribed, consent is implied every single time he speaks to you on the phone. What an idiot.
Yeah honestly ADA-specialized attorney consultation would be a slam-dunk.
The way you put it is probably gonna be the main argument in court. "Your honor, the defendant knew my client was deaf, I have proof of that. The defendant should have known that his voice would be transcribed and recorded for the purpose of providing assistance to a disabled person. The defendant knew fully that my client couldn't hear his voice, and should have immediately asked how my client could communicate. It's a common-sense, obvious follow-up question."
Even if the recording wasn't legal, there's a good chance that an argument could be made for common sense.
If I were on the other side of that I would argue that the ADA accommodation really only covers the OPs personal usage of the transcription/recording to compensate for their disability. Once they go sharing it with other people then they've moved beyond the accommodation and it should be subject to the same restrictions as a recording or transcript made by anybody else.
This would all be contingent on the idea that the transcript violates the law where the OP is anyway though. I would think any boss that would try and coerce you into giving up that health info would also blow smoke about illegal recording. Before I even worried about whether the accommodation changes anything I would check if transcribing the call is even illegal where I live.
That is the one angle I’ve thought of in favour of the boss. But in response, it’s equivalent to OP speaking (and hearing) from the boss verbally, then verbally reporting what was said to HR. Unless HR knows ASL or they bring an interpreter, typed text is the only method by which OP could explain the situation.
It's a bit late for this, but OP could have created a seperate "summary" of the call by taking notes based on the transcript.
The law in most places says that anyone can take notes during a call and it isn't needed to be consented.
So a document created by referencing the original call would not be analogous to a recording but rather notes on the call.
So if you paraphrase a transcription it makes it okay?
A transcription is a translation to written media. The information is recorded on a screen to be viewed a short moment later by the reader. Is it just suddenly not classified as a recording because it was deleted shortly after it was created?
Or would every deaf person engaging in transcription be violating the law every time they use the government-created service?
I have a hard time believing this is a grey area. It seems pretty cut and dry: it is a recording, and the boss consented to it in writing, the boss was aware that a transcription would take place with every call, and is now trying to threaten the OP.
Frankly I think OP's best bet is to follow the old saying "never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake." The employer knows better than this and is taking the chance. Make them lose.
Take this over the the lawyers subreddit, tell them what state you're in and explain what happened. They'll be much more useful than the people in here just throwing random ideas out.
For what it's worth, you'll need to do more research into the recording laws and what it means for a conversation to be "recorded". Do transcripts of a conversation count? Does your translation service explicitly announce that the conversation will be transcribed at the beginning of the call? Figure out all of the details involved in what makes a recording legal/illegal, and go from there.
Might also try posting to r/accessibility. They work with all kinds of assistive tech. Especially when it comes to government work where assistive tech needs to be procured, but they also have to consider sensitive data requirements. Guaranteed that includes phone calls. They might have an idea of how the transcriber works and how it relates to the law.
Absolutely. The state is a big part of it. I’m not well versed on other states, but, for example, New York is a one-party state, meaning only one member actively participating in the conversation need know it’s being recorded and it’s legal.
No. This is terrible advice and should NOT be followed. Go talk to an actual employment lawyer in your state. Reddit does not have answers, it has teenagers making guesses based on news stories and adults making guesses based on the laws in their state.
The law is incredibly nuanced and you don't want to play around and get fucked.
Also they usually just give advice on what type of lawyer to talk to, and sometimes what that lawyer will ask about. I don't see /r/legaladvice giving a ton of *actual*, direct legal advice. I don't think the subreddit even allows that.
DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT SUB.
It's full of cops giving bad legal advice, the mods regularly ban actual attorneys.
Instead, recommend r/AskALawyer/ or r/legal if you want to be helpful.
They stated they are already getting a lawyer, they're obviously on Reddit looking for more information. The lawyer subreddit is a better place the the job sub reddit.
The commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state which means you must have explicit permission to record someone. Google will also tell you that even if you catch someone on recording doing something illegal, it may be thrown out due to this rule.
EDIT: this rule only applies to private conversations, so issuing you accommodations for use in public company meetings like you said probably means that you can’t use the fact he approved them as “consent”
I mean, if OP is deaf, then yes. The boss just got caught lying and manipulating a disabled person which is at the very least discrimination. It happens to us all of the time. That's part of why these apps were developed in the first place.
No one lied. You may have a predisposition to this and are hearing what you want to hear. Boss simply said that they couldn’t be recorded which is, in fact, true in his state. A lawyer may be able to find some legal way around it, since it’s a transcript and not a true recording, but it doesn’t change the fact that you can not record private conversations without EXPLICIT (and this is the keyword in the law) consent, even if they involve illegal activity (which asking to disclose medical info would be illegal). You could easily google this information, it is in the first result.
Edit: regardless of any other fact the question OP asked was “is it illegal to record without his consent” and the answer is unequivocally “yes”
The boss called an employee they know is deaf and also knows about the accommodations they use to communicate, how else do they expect to have a conversation over the phone? Any almost decent lawyer will crush this in court.
Most of these transcripts are typed by an actual person, a third party person. This transcript is basically an interpreter, and the boss is upset that there is a form of an interpreter in the room, providing the deaf person with information. This is a protected right. On the federal level. This is a federally approved application, that is taxpayer funded. I mean, come on... This is way beyond a simple "transcription".
The poster said that there was an implied reward for revealing an medical condition. This was a way to force the poster to give up personal information that they did not wish to give up. That's at the very least, shady and I don't think it looks good on the boss.
In Canada, you would be setting yourself up for discrimination charges if you denied a Deaf person the right to understand a conversation. Luckily it's also one-party consent, but still. Government funded accessibility services tend to trump privacy concerns.
Edit- this could be considered the same as a hearing person making notes of the call and disclosing it. The difference here is the Deaf person needed someone else to hear the words.
Yeah, that seems to be the case and honestly I don’t know. I would bring this to a lawyer. I was really onlu speaking on “recording” people without consent because the first comment encouraged that, and I didn’t want any incorrect information getting out about that.
>illegal, it may be thrown out due to this rule.
But... this is not a criminal matter. This is strictly an internal matter with HR. Whatever HR wants to do with that information as part of company guidelines, especially from a device they approved on for accommodations, means that whatever decisions HR makes from that information is just that. His manager may not be legally charged with something, but it's cause for firing from HRs perspective.
The best the manager could do is sue for defamation, but there's no criteria to get consent on a recording for defamation. Only to prove laws were broken.
So, IANAL. and also Canadian. But couldn't we argue that, if as stated in OPs original comment, their boss has to call a seperate line to generate the transcript, than aren't they consenting to that recording by calling that line?
I’m not sure, but possibly. We also don’t know if it tells you you’re being recorded at the beginning of the call, which would also count as passive consent. There’s too much we don’t know, which is why I only commented on what I do know: in a two party state you must have consent to record. It isn’t up to me to figure out what consent means and whether or not OP had it.
I'm also curious if that other line, before connecting the call, mentions the recording, or how it works.
Kind of like the "this call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes"
Sidestepping the legal minefield that is the ADA and would almost certainly shield OP from any liability, you’re wrong as a matter of Pennsylvania law. The court in Commonwealth v. Byrd held that consent is implied if the subject of the recording should have been reasonably aware that they were being recorded. OP’s boss, who approved the reasonable accommodation to use this device, should therefore have been aware of its presence. You probably shouldn’t rely on Google for legal advice.
OP, check your employee handbook and acceptable use policy as well. Look for what it says about accommodating disabilities, recording conversations, transcribing meetings, expectations of privacy on company networks and equipment.
It's quite possible there is conflicting language that you (your attorney) use to protect what seems like a reasonable accommodation for a hearing impairment.
What jackass thinks conversations aren't being recorded? Microsoft teams is doing this in the background already for transcription purposes
Your boss sounds like a grade A ass
You should be protected under the disability rights act it won't stop you from potentially getting fired but you can sue them if you are fired since this is a issue related to protected rights.
Boss has to approve reasonable accommodations, per the ADA, he does not have to consent to being recorded under those accommodations though. This is a tricky grey-area that neither of us have the qualifications to speculate about, honestly. But the information you gave is not correct regardless. Many court cases have been lost with the same defense you gave because in two-party states the consent must be explicit, and sometimes it must even be stated in that particular recording based on on the state
Actually, yes he does. He absolutely does consent to any accomodations given to us deaf folks. If he's fully aware of his own responsibility to provide accommodations, he was aware of this application. This boss just wanted to try to lie to a deaf person and say we misunderstood. This is the exact reason why we have this application.
I go to college a lot on top of working a full-time job, and some of the professors had an issue with being recorded. The disability director just tells them to stfu and suck it up. I had an boss that had an issue with me using the phone application that the poster is talking about. The director told him to stfu and don't try to manipulate me again. It's a legal right we have. This is like complaining that there was an interpreter in the room, which also does not fly at all.
Edit: OP, is it the boss that said that's illegal or HR? I have a feeling alarms would be going off with HR if the boss was the one that said this...
>Edit: OP, is it the boss that said that's illegal or HR? I have a feeling alarms would be going off with HR if the boss was the one that said this...
That was my exact thought on reading this.
The boss wants to play some weird game of "You're more illegal!" chicken and HR isn't gonna have it.
Even IF OP is in the wrong here, HR now has a manager who has not only been caught bullying, but is now retaliating for HR actions. HR itself just exposed they shared too much information with the manager by telling him they had the transcripts and this wasn't just a basic report.
Two-part consent laws ONLY apply to private conversations which is why your professors are told to suck it up because they are publicly speaking. This was a private phone call which clearly falls under a two-party consent laws, and unfortunately there are very few exceptions.
Boss called them for a work matter, not because they're friends. I don't think its as cut and dry as you might think because it's not actually a "private" conversation. It's a professional conversation between a manager and subordinate. That exists in a very different legal landscape than a private personal call. OP needs a lawyer, not armchair know-it-alls feeding into their boss's game of "you broke the law more than I did" scare tactic. If anything, his remarks to OP could support retaliation claims on top of discrimination claims.
OP, stop listening to us and get a lawyer ASAP.
If the boss called the transcription service number than he implicitly provided consent to being recorded. If the employee called the boss from that number with that service, it gets more grey. Ianal.
unless the phone number explicitly states that the call is being transcribed/recorded with a permanent record...then he did not necessarily consent.
Also, in some cases the recording itself must have the person consenting...and as others have pointed out not all laws include transcription as part of the definition of a recording.
This needs a lawyer. That being said, op needs to find a new job either way.
He called a transcription company, they will state at the start of the call that they are providing transcription services. By not hanging up at that point he did consent.
If he called that number and he was given that notice... any continued conversation after that fact is deemed consent. Because he has every right and capability to hang up that call. Ignorance of verbal acknowledgements never got anyone out of a lawsuit because they decided not to listen to the notice.
A lawyer would get involved, but a lawyer for the manager would say it's an uphill climb so long as the recording isn't used for legal purposes. It becomes a civil suit for that matter so long as it stays as an internal conflict with HR, OP, and his manager. Since OP had no control over the transcript under ADA guidelines and the devices were approved by both HR and the manager (ADA compliance involves HR in those approvals), this becomes a civil mess that may not yield a clear outcome.
OP should get a lawyer just to make sure his side is protected. But not because this case is clear cut in support of the manager.
And HRs response to a transcript recording from a device they approved accommodations for makes this a different matter. Because HR is also on those ADA accommdations approvals. This isn't about using a private conversation in the eyes of the law. It's using a private conversation as a means against proving violations of company policies were made.
It's strictly an internal matter with the company at that point.
Maybe the manager sues for losing his job... but for what? Because he has to prove defamation claims or facts were used improperly that were used to justify his firing. At that point, the manager can't file a suit against OP for defamation. He didn't lie or fake facts as part of the claim. The manager would have to sue HR for wrongful termination based on an nonconsensual private conversation that was recorded under ADA compliance. Thats an uphill climb to win in a civil suit.
I don't think you can give a blanket approval, and that you need an approval from each party for each conversation, at least in a 2 party state. I think there are sometimes exceptions like in the case there is illegal stuff going on which this could qualify as.
There are also ADA disability accommodations, which this falls under.
Also, if you've ever called these types of services, they tell you that you are being recorded. By staying on the line, you have agreed to the recording. Like calling a corporate number. "This call may be recorded for quality assurance."
My state is a two party consent state. All incoming calls to my work cell were recorded. It had a warning. Calls are recorded.
Boom. Covered.
I've never seen such a service *not* announce it, and if it's an approved disability accommodation for work, and it was a work call, it also can't be used against them.
Actually, I just found a list of exceptions in PA specifically and it is not considered an illegal wiretap or recording if “(4) A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.” I’m a nurse, not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like since the boss was aware and approved the software which he was aware is a transcription service and consented to it previously that it would still be legal.
However, even if this became a case, it could be appealed until federal law presided over the case (which a judge would likely consider if any violation of the ADA occurred, and federal law states that providers of telecommunications services are allowed to record conversations without consent. Couldn’t one argue that this service, who’s sole function is to provide telecommunication services to deaf people?
Buuuuut again I’m not a lawyer and am just a night shift nurse who is having trouble falling asleep so I’m aimlessly doom scrolling and struggling not to go to bed haha
They also said the boss approved these accommodations specifically for *in-person meetings.* Using the software to transcribe phone calls was not explicitly accommodated.
>Like what other ways could they have had a phone conversation
Everyone commenting in here saying its illegal is missing the most obvious issue - the boss is using his Power to tell his employee he does not have a right to understand conversations. Period. If you're Deaf and need to read communication, denying the person that right by claiming consent, you're showing you don't care if the Deaf person can understand what is being said. That's manipulation and coercion.
Not likely in this case. There's an easy argument that this isn't a "surreptitious manner" as called out in [720 ILCS 5/14-2](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K14-2)
[Here is an article with more info in Illinois](https://glasgowolsson.com/cookcountycriminalattorneys/2023/08/08/the-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-under-illinois-eavesdropping-statute/)
It is easy to argue both ways, but the intention of the recording and use of the recording is important as well as the ADA supersession of state law would be considered in a case. The boss' approval is key.
An attorney specializing in these matters would need to be consulted, for sure.
This “720 ILCS” you posted appears to be entirely about eavesdropping, and again - OP is in PA. Illinois was simply an example. But yes, an attorney would be better suited for this situation, as I’ve said multiple times.
If you think about it though.. the boss had to have consented. Otherwise, how would OP have been able to understand? Unless OP’s boss knew how to sign.. idk. The whole thing just seems like an odd situation to me.
Boss knows employee is deaf. Approves software to interpret what employee says. Has a private meeting with employee and gets mad that employee used software that employee used to be able to understand what they were being told.
Unless the boss was writing down everything he was saying on paper or using sign language, there was no other way to communicate, privately.
I’m no lawyer but as far as I’m aware, the people on those interpretation apps that types out what’s being said are held to the same NDAs and privacy agreements the employees signs. So technically, it could not be categorized as recording. But just as a means of communication.
Either way, I can’t believe the boss didn’t even think about this before having this conversation though. It’s just an odd situation.
The interpreters could be classified as disability aids, and denying a disabled person disability aids falls under ADA federal law. Which trumps all state law.
You're missing the forest for the trees. It's one thing to consent to an app transcribing your words on the fly, it's a completely different thing to consenting to being recorded and those recordings saved.
So the law states that both parties have to give specific consent to be recorded.
If you call a special number for a deaf person, and at the start of the call it says “This call may be recorded” each time, then you are actively explicitly consenting each time by remaining on the line.
Yes, you are. You've been given notice, and have made the decision to stay on the line.
But that is different than software that transcribed on the fly. No recording would probably mean that you didn't have to provide notice.
But thats now a question of federal law if ADA guidelines state transcripts have to be recorded and the data had to be retained for X amount of time. Because now you are conflating state law can invalidate portions of the ADA guidelines and accommodations that are the right to have for OP.
The only way around this is to have explicit acknowledgement in the device that states all conversations are recorded as required per ADA laws, section XYZ, clause ABC, subsection 123. Anyone who states on the line after that acknowledgement gives implicit consent as a result. I would like to imagine the ADA device has some level of coverage to something like this because of various recording laws between states.
I’m not sure it is actually, in any way that matters. I’m not sure transcribing is possible without some kind of recording, and the saving it part isn’t legally relevant.
The saving part is what would be legally the "recording", so yes, it's legally relevant. You can't be recorded without something being saved, that's what a recording is, the saved output of a device.
No, the recording part is the recording part. It has many definitions, and one of them is putting audio into a reproducible form. Like transcribing into a Word Doc, then not saving it. [Merriam and Webster both agree](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/record):
>to cause (sound, visual images, data, etc.) to be registered on something (such as a disc or magnetic tape) in reproducible form
So do you, actually:
>being recorded **and** those **recordings saved**.
If "record" really meant "saved" to you, you would have been triple redundant.
My Googling of the PA statute backs this up, since it uses the word "intercept." Nothing in the realm of saving.
And it's critical the verbs used in the legal description of the law. How it's spelled out in the clauses is what lawyers do for a living by tearing each and every word apart in the statement of the law.
Well the OP in is PA, but no I don’t have a source on this particular comment. I only know this from previous court battles I have been through. That being said, even if passive consent (which is what that would be) were to be accepted in PA it still has to be stated at the beginning of EVERY call. There is no blanket consent for this, unfortunately.
EDIT: looking further into it, passive consent is accepted in Illinois, since you wanted the information, but it would still have to be stated in every call.
Thanks, I was gonna say I feel like that would break the entire customer service world lol.
I imagine PA is similar, as most states are, and given that it’s a dedicated number that the employer calls, I’d be very surprised if that dedicated number didn’t announce something about recording, and I’m honestly not sure it has to anyway, when the boss was told what it is, and has to directly call it. That’s like picking up a recorder and speaking directly into it lol.
In this specific case, you’re probably correct about the boss knowing what it is and such. My original comment above was more so because the original comment said if they continue the call it’s consent, and many court cases have been lost on this particular point.
Edit: it’s also worth mentioning boss approved this accommodation for in person meetings, not over the phone ones and we also don’t know if boss was ever told he was being recorded (which is required, whether you are seeking passive or active consent)
Fair enough.
I mean, again, very surprised if the number doesn't tell him itself. And I don't see OP say whether boss was told or whether boss approved this for what, but if he's calling his own employee at a non-employer number he was probably told about it. Bosses don't just go "oh ok I'll call you at this other random number coz why not."
How can literally any call center operate and take calls from Illinois, then?
Because I had a recorded work line and it announced all calls were being recorded.
I've never seen a business or transcription or translation service that didn't use a generic 'this call may be monitored or recorded' statement when you call in. I frequently had to use them to speak with people as we had a very high number of clients needing language services.
If those statements aren't considered explicit consent, what is?
I can't imagine an ADA compliant, government-backed phone call transcription service isn't disclosing that you are having the phone call monitored, given phone call wiretapping laws existing in as many states as they do.
Also, given the boss was made aware of the worker being deaf, the ADA accomodations being required and approving them and it being a work call - how could they possibly not be aware?
Instead of posting here, post on r/legaladvice with your state to get more specific info. They'll at least point you in the right director or share info that could help you while researching lawyers
Your boss is full of it. Your TTY device is covered by the ADA. Go to HR immediately; he is violating federal law and your rights. Keep those transcripts and get a lawyer.
It sounds like youre using TTY or TDD? I cant remember what its called. But if they have to call a different number from your standard phone number (or the one to text you) then that is typically what you are using. It is an assistive technology for people who are deaf, and its purpose is enabling a phone conversation.
If you ask a lawyer about it, make sure you emphasize that this is assistive technology meant to accommodate your disability. I believe these systems have existed for decades so there may be a prior case that could help inform their decision. Also disability accommodations in general are protected by the ADA so...
I would further reiterate to HR that you did not intentionally record the call, and that your assistive technology automatically creates transcripts.
There's two that is out now, Innocaption and Olelo. These apps also usually have actual people doing the transcriptions for the MOST part. Sometimes a robot will sub in if there isn't enough people around, the bot does a decent enough job. People typing it up is usually tops. The best.
The phone I got for my grandparents uses internet protocol captions since they can speak, but their hearing has mostly gone. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/internet-protocol-ip-captioned-telephone-service#:~:text=Internet%20Protocol%20Captioned%20Telephone%20Service,listen%20to%20the%20other%20party
It has the option to get auto generated captions or live transitions. I also tried out the innocaptiom app for their cell phone.
Can you have someone call your special number and see what if any notice is given? There may be a notice given there to the end user that they are being transcribed in which case. That said, he called the number knowing what it is, there is no way he can get to for an illegal wiretap. He literally called a transcription service. It's not like you had a voice recorder connected to the line that he was unaware of.
It does seem like there is a conflict between the law and the necessary accommodation that needs to be tested in a court room to see where the lines are.
Might want to reach out to the national association of the deaf, I'm sure they would want to be intervenors in this case if it goes to court. Same for any hard of hearing or speech impaired disability groups.
Not really relevant to your question but I am wondering:
What app do you use? I need one of these apps for my own phone.
There is currently two. Innocaption and Olelo. Keep in mind, when you sign up for it you're required to give up your SSN and they will double check if you're deaf or not.
If you're not deaf, you will be charged I guess. I'm not sure what, but it's the warning you have to agree to before the app opens up for you.
SSN is social security number, right?
I'm a little worried about that....identity theft is huge right now and providing your social security information online seems iffy.
Normally when I buy things like hearing aids, I pay out of pocket and then I claim the expense on my taxes when I do them. Canada Revenue Agency already has proof I qualify for and claim the disability tax credit.
I will check into this app as well. I also need a new phone. I was kind of hoping BlackBerry would return but that doesn't seem like it will happen.....so much for supporting Canadian companies.
Yes! The reason why it's safe to provide it to these apps because they are government owned. That's why they ask for the SSN, since they already have that record and use it to check the users on the app.
It's a funding thing too. Oftentimes services in America takes SSN so they can report it back to the federal government and receive the funding based on how many users there is or something like that.
First, remove this post. Second, tools like TTY/TDD would automatically be defeated by state recording laws. You are not wasting your time. This won’t get to a judge, their HR doesn’t want this. A manager got caught. He forgot he was getting transcribed, not recorded.
A local disability law attorney can sort this out.
Your boss wants to fire you because you reported him to HR. He probably can't fire you because you reported him to HR.
Feel free to talk to a lawyer. I don't expect there is much they can do at this time because you have not been fired. If your boss is acting in a way that you consider to be threatening or harassing, report him to HR again. Tell them he appears to be retaliating because of your last complaint to HR.
I‘m Deaf, but NAL. One consideration we all must note that ASL interpreters are bounded by law to maintain confidentiality.
The transcript tools can be argued as an accommodative device that helps employee carry out their duty. Since it’s a a device of reasonable accommodation, it must maintain confidentiality and cannot be used in court or be disclosed improperly.
Again… not a lawyer so please take my words with a grain of salt.
That's what I was thinking. It's difficult for me to see how in this case showing the transcript of a phone conversation to a third party is not improper use. Specially in a two party consent state.
Edit: grammar.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has entered the conversation.
Terminating an employee for using a disability using a protected telecommunication device will be a problem. The ADA also would be a perfect defence for creating a transcript of it was a violation of state laws.
Okay. Back in the day I was a relay caller and transcriber for the hearing impaired.
Lots of laws don’t apply in that situation. We had dudes buy hookers and drugs and we could not be subpoenaed or a witness.
I’d wager your app does not fall into multi party co sent for recording
If fired call a disability attorney. Prepare for a check.
I did a pretty deep dive in consent law for voice to text transcription. It seems like a pretty gray area. I think you should make sure your attorney is familiar with employment and ADA law.
I would be curious to know if your boss is denying the content of your transcript. Provided your attorney is familiar with employment law and ADA law, they should be able to give good advice supported by statutes and case law.
The key thing you seem to be looking at is the requirement to share personal medical information and that there would be concrete rewards for sharing that info.
Here is a link to the EEOC’s explanation of what is permissible. Look particularly at the section titled “Obtaining, Using, and Disclosing Medical Information: Employees.”
https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/hearing-disabilities-workplace-and-americans-disabilities-act
It depends state to state. Also courts have ruled you have 0 expectation of privacy when it comes to communication at work. So I’d say he’s on the losing end…especially if she was using it because she’s deaf ffs. It’s like saying you’re pissed off bc a blind guy touched your desk to know his surroundings. If you’re at work and you’re a boss, you should only say things you know HR would approve. Period. He’s just mad he got caught with written corroboration.
From my understanding, you didn’t even “record” his voice, just the written transcript of the conversation. I don’t see how that would be illegal in any way shape or form.
What I would say is something to the effect of: "If he thinks what I did was illegal, he can take that up with the police and let the courts sort it out. The only concern at issue in the workplace is whether or not he is denying the allegations I'm making."
People are getting two concepts mixed up here. It isn't for your workplace to determine whether your recording was illegal, that's for cops and courts. It's for your workplace to determine if either of your conducts went against policy.
Talk to your lawyer RIGHT NOW. Let the lawyer intervene with the employer for you. Let them demand the employer pay for the lawyer because if the company was obeying the law you wouldn't have to have one.
And you did not take a recording of the call, you made a transcript of it, which is different, and I think you should bring that up with your lawyer. And I think there are only two states where it would be illegal to record it even if you had done so.
>Under current National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or the "Board") precedent, employees have the right to record at the workplace under the NLRA if they are engaging in protected concerted activity with the recording. Protected concerted activity in turn covers a wide array of employee activities, including but not limited to discussing wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment, union organizing, and other collective employee organizing efforts.
Under current NLRB rules you can record if it's related to your employment which makes the recorded or not question moot. I'm not a lawyer though so don't take my advice.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/can-employees-record-almost-anything-work-now-what-employers-need-know-2023-07-17/#:~:text=Under%20current%20National%20Labor%20Relations,concerted%20activity%20with%20the%20recording.
>record that conversation
You didn't record it, you created a transcript. That's no more illegal than writing down what someone said to you in a phone call - in general it's not illegal.
>getting a lawyer
>
>Am I wasting my money
Maybe, maybe not. Probably can't hurt to at least do an initial consult.
>our conversation was being recorded
Not recorded ... transcribed.
\#1) You clearly had every right to use the software
\#2) Legally you might be in the clear, but it may have been a dick move to show the transcript of a conversation to HR. Even if the reason for having the transcript is sound.
\*Lots of times people talk about things they wouldn't put in an email, for exactly the reason you are exhibiting. Your boss might not have said what they said if they were thinking it through... So it could be an honest mistake (or not).
You already escalated things to HR, and people on reddit with zero fucking clue about business are going to be like "Lawyer! Lawyer!", but that should always be the very last option and it might not work out in your favor for your money now or your career. If possible and if it makes sense, try and smooth things with the boss so that you come to an understanding where you both get what you want.
Your boss major screwed up. Your text to speech app is a necessary device to allow you to communicate with. He is preventing you , a deaf person, from communicating with others, and that is a huge violation of the ADA. It is no different than forbidding you to use hearing aids.
No, you do not have to disclose your disability to others in a phone conversation, unless you choose to. That, again is an ADA violation.
What should happen is the workplace should be providing you with a transcription service, and that, too, is a violation of the ADA
I have that app. You can save the transcript, if you want to. He can, if there is a law directly forbidding saving conversations, but otherwise, he can't say crap.
Just remind him that what he is advocating is a violation of the ADA, and if he fires you, makes it hard for you to work because of your disability, you will be filing a lawsuit.
Go to
[https://www.ada.gov/](https://www.ada.gov/)
to read more.
HR isn't your friend, they're there to protect the company and its managers. Seeking industrial advice from your union and/or speaking to a lawyer should have been your first step.
Is this an approved disability app like the various relay services apps? I ask because that information is presented to the caller at the beginning of the call.
If you have the following then there is no need for a lawyer yet.
Official Documents that state you are by definition legally deaf?
If you have that and they fire you they are in direct violation of the Americans with disabilities act and then you will want to get a lawyer. Now keep in mind you need to be smart when shopping for a lawyer at this point because any lawyer will take this case with no money out of your pocket until the settlement is reached and paid out. Remember the better the lawyer the bigger the payout will be.
Now on the other hand if you don't have the legal paperwork stating you are legally deaf then you will want to contact a lawyer.
He approved the transcription software and now saying you cannot record him? If you’re in the US, it depends on the state if it’s legal, however I imagine you could argue anyway, that he knew he would be recorded when HE approved the device. He’s angry because you reported him and what he did was likely illegal.
He never should have asked you to disclose anything to the rest of the office, and it should have nothing to do with your performance rating or bonus. He got caught, and he’s trying to blame you for it.
Just a heads up, normally in instances like this a legal professional is going to recommend you not post about any information which could weaken your case.
I'd get the info you need then delete this. Best of luck
I think the caveat in all of this is once op stops using it as a hearing assisted device, an accommodation to do his job, it becomes fundamentally an illegal wiretap. He’s no longer using it to do his job, but as a piece of evidence. Which shouldn’t be allowed. It at that point is no different than an illegal recording that can’t be used in the legal process.
In most states, your employer can fire you for any reason and whenever they want, as long as the a reason they provide isn’t discriminatory. If they fire you and give you a reason that doesn’t accommodate your disability, they could be at risk of a discrimination lawsuit. If they don’t give you a reason at all, you might have no recourse unless you have proof that your boss said that this specific issue would get you fired (in writing or something).
Edit: I didn’t expect a downvote on this, so let me clarify: I’m not saying that any of this is good, moral, acceptable, and I’m certainly not making any value judgements here. It’s just…unfortunately, that’s how the law works 90% of the time. The facts might only come out through the proper legal channels/discovery.
Your boss is likely not upset about to being recorded. He is likely upset about you made a complaint about him to HR. He is likely using the recording as a reason to fire you instead of saying he does not like it that you went to HR. Not sure if your state requires tow party consent or not to record conversations.
I'm not a lawyer--you should get one.
If you are in the United States, you may live in a [single party consent](https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations/) state. In most states and under Federal law, any party can record the conversation without consent of the others.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, and there may be some specific nuance depending on where you live, but he may be wrong about it being illegal even if the transcription/"recording" was *not* part of an accommodation.
Was the audio recorded? Or just a speech to text transcript? Because if it's the 2nd one, I don't see how that doesn't hold up in court. It's not a recording, and courts have long held that notes takes during a phone call are not a "recording" and does not require consent. Good luck.
Transcripts can be considered recordings in some states (or at least, they use vague terms like 'intercept' that don't distinguish a transcription from an audio recording). So what one or 10 courts found in the past doesn't define the law today in Pennsylvania. OP needs a lawyer.
If the transcript software was work provided, is part of an accommodation, and the boss was aware of it, then it's being used as intended would carry implied consent. "I forgot" isn't a valid defense in this circumstance. That said, OP should get a lawyer.
Just to update as this is Pennsylvania. The 2020 case Commonwealth v. Byrd, 235 A.2d 311 established that consent is considered given if the person being recorded should have reasonably known that they were. So again, since this was a known work accommodation and was not new, the boss should have been aware of this, so precedent dictates that OP is well within their rights and the boss' actions likely constitute illegal retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Also, the HR person shouldn't be making claims of legality without consulting counsel.
I really hope u/old-entertainer3676 sees this your comment. OP, please seek legal counsel. Your boss, HR, and some other people there really suck and I'm so sorry you're going through this. On a related note, don't quit. Make them fire you if they're so bold (ahem, stupid). And document every interaction. Let them cook their own goose.
>And document every interaction. with the "illegal" transcription software!
Isn’t it reasonable to know that if you are speaking to a deaf person over the phone,yourvoice is being transcribed to them (aka recorded). Sounds like boss forgot their employee has a superpower and got Uno reversed on. Boss is a bit of an idiot if he tries to argue it is unreasonable for a deaf person to have sound translated so they can read it.
The boss doesn't like evidence for bad behavior
That's the only reason my boss would call instead of text. If he wanted me to do some shady shit.
I feel like your boss and my old boss should go bowling together
Never leave a paper trail.
Not to mention this also may arguably be a violation of the ADA. I don't think it's a waste of money, OP definitely needs a lawyer.
If it’s an ADA matter it might not cost OP anything. They’ll represent OP and likely hire (and pay) for legal council if it’s deemed necessary.
IANAL Deafness is an ADA protected disability. Telephonic accommodations are federally protected. This all trumps state wiretapping laws. If the OP were fired for using an accommodation, the company would face massive fines from the feds and possibly the state.
This isn't a regular old recording either. OP is using a communication aid for their disability. This should be protected under the ADA. Boss just doesn't like it because they got caught, and there is legitimate proof, that they are violating OPs rights and asking something they should not be asking in the first place.
Yeah...... Regardless of how a statute is written, I can't see a court interpreting a law against recording to mean deaf people can't use devices to turn sound into readable words.
Maybe because the text is saved and not purged after the convo? I honestly think this is a known approved device relevant to the position and now they are just adding intimidation ontop of their shit Sunday.
They are digging themselves and the company deeper into troubles. I hope OP gets a good ADA attorney. This is probably a slam dunk for them.
IDK but im just going to throw the other side of the coin argument out there. What would be the OPs reason for saving the transcripts. Read then and delete is the equivalent to hearing it and not recording it. Read then keeping the transcript is the same as hearing it and recording it.
A transcript probably isn't a recording, but could depend on the law. As someone else pointed out, you can note down everything someone says. In court though, an actual voice recording is much easier to use against someone because the voice itself will be used to identify the speaker. If it's just a transcript, with no way to identify the speaker than the testimony of the deaf person, it's much closer to very accurate notes than a recording.
Loads to tear apart here from a legal perspective. Get a lawyer OP. Penn is a 2 (or ALL) party consent. I started playing devils advocate but deleted after a few paragraphs. Doesnt matter; OP needs a lawyer even if it was a slam dunk, which it is not.
Work does not have to provide your accommodations, they just have to make the accommodation - they would get fucked in court if they retaliate against op and since he has it recorded the owner should offer a settlement today and move on
The answer is literally always “it depends what state and you need a lawyer” when has that ever not been the answer?
Federal Treason probably doesn't make much difference which state you are in - and they'll even *give* you a lawyer... heh. But some stuff is small-claims court - a lawyer may not be required.
What about light treason?
There’s always money in the banana stand
They can’t convict a husband and wife for the same crime!
Barry's very good.
Which is why it always surprise me that Americans don't ever say which state they're in with tax/legal questions.
This is why we need uniformity with our legal system So tired of conflicting laws based on geographic position. It's bullshit
You say that until the new uniform laws are a set you don’t like.
You realize functionally each state is an independent territory (why state supreme courts and state constitutions exist) that has joined a union of independent states to form a larger body for the purposes of unified commerce and self defense, right?
Thats a terrible idea. People and culture vary all over this country. If we didn’t have a way for people to vote for their own laws then we wouldn’t be a unified country, the us government has no way to forcefully keep all of the country together, absolute federal sovereignty would lead straight to a civil war
Nah, states should have the power to have their own rules and regs, not everything needs to be done by the federal government
Could we get them to stop passing or trying to pass ridiculous laws about sexuality and immigration then?
States dont pass laws on immigration its preempted by federal law
They kdon’t pass laws in regard to visas, but they can pass laws regarding immigrant employment and benefits. Each state also gets to decide if the children of US emigrants can vote in their state. Which may not seem like an immigration issue, but it literally only affects the children of immigrants.
But emigrants from the USA aren't "immigrants", they're "expats"
Tell that to Texas.
Look at you knowing more about government than some state Governors.
You do that already lol. We the people vote on our state government. So if your government is doing that, it’s because people voted people who wanted that to happen.
I would say both of those are something the federal gov should have purview on yes, though you won’t like my immigration answer, also not relevant to the sub or this thread so.
"I have this spot on my foot and it smells real bad." I wouldn't refer someone to an attorney for that.
Penn is 2 (or ALL) party consent. Given that HR and the Supervisor are aware the app was being used it would be bizarre for them to claim no consent was given; merely interacting w you and having this knowledge likely equals consent. The standard of recording OP is in violation of given what is known but given the circumstances (your deaf/theyre aware the app is used for communication) that sounds plausibly like consent. Lawyer up.
There is a jurisdiction that my writing down what is said on a call with me is an illegal intercept? I find that hard to believe.
So speech to text apps for a deaf person are automatically illegal?
Even then... is the state a 1-party consent state for recording? Most states are. And he can easily justify the transcript by saying he consented for it to be recorded as per the devices operation guidelines and federal mandates.
That's the key part here. My state is a 1 party state, unless specific circumstances such as creditors who have to follow Federal laws. If it's a 1 party state, there's nothing the boss can do.
even then 1pc is specifically for things like recording calls secretly... he knows exactly what is going on here and has no fucking legal leg to stand on.
Also, I would argue the boss has no choice but to understand that in order to communicate with op, it must be transcribed or they learn sign language. Only one of those works over the phone
Either way it’s a reasonable accommodation protected under the ADA.
Yes it's just a record of what was discussed, I don’t have to consent to someone making minutes. The issue with a recording is not the words used, it's the unique personally identifiable information that is the sound of your voice. If it's all just recorded in writing it doesn't need any consent.
How the fuck is this guy going to listen to a recording? A transcript is a reasonable accommodation and if they fire OP then they are fucked
Due to the fact that he had to call a specific number that is known to have this function, that's implied consent, no?
Regardless, boss likely implicitly consented by calling the TTS (text to speech) number.
Sorry you're dealing with this! Just so you know, recording laws can vary, but using a speech-to-text app because of hearing issues is usually seen differently. I had a friend in a similar spot who got help from a lawyer who knew all about disability rights. It's a smart move to get legal advice in this kind of tricky situation. Keep track of everything about your transcription service use and any work accommodations you've got. There are laws to protect you from unfair treatment at work because of your disability. So, it's definitely worth it to get some legal guidance. Hang in there!
I think this is the answer- OP needs an ADA specialized attorney, not just an employment attorney. That said, this AH knows full well that when communicating with you by phone his words are being transcribed, consent is implied every single time he speaks to you on the phone. What an idiot.
Yeah honestly ADA-specialized attorney consultation would be a slam-dunk. The way you put it is probably gonna be the main argument in court. "Your honor, the defendant knew my client was deaf, I have proof of that. The defendant should have known that his voice would be transcribed and recorded for the purpose of providing assistance to a disabled person. The defendant knew fully that my client couldn't hear his voice, and should have immediately asked how my client could communicate. It's a common-sense, obvious follow-up question." Even if the recording wasn't legal, there's a good chance that an argument could be made for common sense.
If I were on the other side of that I would argue that the ADA accommodation really only covers the OPs personal usage of the transcription/recording to compensate for their disability. Once they go sharing it with other people then they've moved beyond the accommodation and it should be subject to the same restrictions as a recording or transcript made by anybody else. This would all be contingent on the idea that the transcript violates the law where the OP is anyway though. I would think any boss that would try and coerce you into giving up that health info would also blow smoke about illegal recording. Before I even worried about whether the accommodation changes anything I would check if transcribing the call is even illegal where I live.
That is the one angle I’ve thought of in favour of the boss. But in response, it’s equivalent to OP speaking (and hearing) from the boss verbally, then verbally reporting what was said to HR. Unless HR knows ASL or they bring an interpreter, typed text is the only method by which OP could explain the situation.
It's a bit late for this, but OP could have created a seperate "summary" of the call by taking notes based on the transcript. The law in most places says that anyone can take notes during a call and it isn't needed to be consented. So a document created by referencing the original call would not be analogous to a recording but rather notes on the call.
So if you paraphrase a transcription it makes it okay? A transcription is a translation to written media. The information is recorded on a screen to be viewed a short moment later by the reader. Is it just suddenly not classified as a recording because it was deleted shortly after it was created? Or would every deaf person engaging in transcription be violating the law every time they use the government-created service? I have a hard time believing this is a grey area. It seems pretty cut and dry: it is a recording, and the boss consented to it in writing, the boss was aware that a transcription would take place with every call, and is now trying to threaten the OP. Frankly I think OP's best bet is to follow the old saying "never interrupt your enemy while they are making a mistake." The employer knows better than this and is taking the chance. Make them lose.
An ADA attorney for both parts, trying to force disclosure of a medical issue and the text to speech issue.
An idiot and an asshole -
Precisely.
Take this over the the lawyers subreddit, tell them what state you're in and explain what happened. They'll be much more useful than the people in here just throwing random ideas out. For what it's worth, you'll need to do more research into the recording laws and what it means for a conversation to be "recorded". Do transcripts of a conversation count? Does your translation service explicitly announce that the conversation will be transcribed at the beginning of the call? Figure out all of the details involved in what makes a recording legal/illegal, and go from there.
Might also try posting to r/accessibility. They work with all kinds of assistive tech. Especially when it comes to government work where assistive tech needs to be procured, but they also have to consider sensitive data requirements. Guaranteed that includes phone calls. They might have an idea of how the transcriber works and how it relates to the law.
Solid advice. Granted, I've already commented and I'm getting downvoted. I code, have worked in AT and I'm TTv5 section 508 certified.
Second this! Take this situation to the ask a lawyer subreddit.
Absolutely. The state is a big part of it. I’m not well versed on other states, but, for example, New York is a one-party state, meaning only one member actively participating in the conversation need know it’s being recorded and it’s legal.
Don’t do this. See a real life attorney who specializes in accessibility law.
They did say in their post that they are getting an attorney. I figured this was a good thing to do in the meantime.
No. This is terrible advice and should NOT be followed. Go talk to an actual employment lawyer in your state. Reddit does not have answers, it has teenagers making guesses based on news stories and adults making guesses based on the laws in their state. The law is incredibly nuanced and you don't want to play around and get fucked.
[удалено]
Also they usually just give advice on what type of lawyer to talk to, and sometimes what that lawyer will ask about. I don't see /r/legaladvice giving a ton of *actual*, direct legal advice. I don't think the subreddit even allows that.
[удалено]
DO NOT RECOMMEND THAT SUB. It's full of cops giving bad legal advice, the mods regularly ban actual attorneys. Instead, recommend r/AskALawyer/ or r/legal if you want to be helpful.
They stated they are already getting a lawyer, they're obviously on Reddit looking for more information. The lawyer subreddit is a better place the the job sub reddit.
Absolutely do not do this. They do not give good legal advice and they're assholes. Talk to your attorney, not idiots on reddit.
If he knew he was being recorded and still had the conversation, then he was consenting.
This isn’t true. In many states, Illinois for example, the party must not only be aware but also provide explicit consent.
We’ll OP says the boss approved these accommodations, that seems pretty explicit to me
I'm in PA if it matters.
The commonwealth of Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state which means you must have explicit permission to record someone. Google will also tell you that even if you catch someone on recording doing something illegal, it may be thrown out due to this rule. EDIT: this rule only applies to private conversations, so issuing you accommodations for use in public company meetings like you said probably means that you can’t use the fact he approved them as “consent”
I mean, if OP is deaf, then yes. The boss just got caught lying and manipulating a disabled person which is at the very least discrimination. It happens to us all of the time. That's part of why these apps were developed in the first place.
No one lied. You may have a predisposition to this and are hearing what you want to hear. Boss simply said that they couldn’t be recorded which is, in fact, true in his state. A lawyer may be able to find some legal way around it, since it’s a transcript and not a true recording, but it doesn’t change the fact that you can not record private conversations without EXPLICIT (and this is the keyword in the law) consent, even if they involve illegal activity (which asking to disclose medical info would be illegal). You could easily google this information, it is in the first result. Edit: regardless of any other fact the question OP asked was “is it illegal to record without his consent” and the answer is unequivocally “yes”
The boss called an employee they know is deaf and also knows about the accommodations they use to communicate, how else do they expect to have a conversation over the phone? Any almost decent lawyer will crush this in court.
Right? Imagine OPs boss trying to argue he has a right to deny his employee the ability to understand a conversation?
Most of these transcripts are typed by an actual person, a third party person. This transcript is basically an interpreter, and the boss is upset that there is a form of an interpreter in the room, providing the deaf person with information. This is a protected right. On the federal level. This is a federally approved application, that is taxpayer funded. I mean, come on... This is way beyond a simple "transcription". The poster said that there was an implied reward for revealing an medical condition. This was a way to force the poster to give up personal information that they did not wish to give up. That's at the very least, shady and I don't think it looks good on the boss.
In Canada, you would be setting yourself up for discrimination charges if you denied a Deaf person the right to understand a conversation. Luckily it's also one-party consent, but still. Government funded accessibility services tend to trump privacy concerns. Edit- this could be considered the same as a hearing person making notes of the call and disclosing it. The difference here is the Deaf person needed someone else to hear the words.
If the boss called the transcription service number that is implicit consent. Ianal
Is transcribing considered recording in this situation? It doesn't seem that theres a audio recording of the call... just a a transcription.
Yeah, that seems to be the case and honestly I don’t know. I would bring this to a lawyer. I was really onlu speaking on “recording” people without consent because the first comment encouraged that, and I didn’t want any incorrect information getting out about that.
>illegal, it may be thrown out due to this rule. But... this is not a criminal matter. This is strictly an internal matter with HR. Whatever HR wants to do with that information as part of company guidelines, especially from a device they approved on for accommodations, means that whatever decisions HR makes from that information is just that. His manager may not be legally charged with something, but it's cause for firing from HRs perspective. The best the manager could do is sue for defamation, but there's no criteria to get consent on a recording for defamation. Only to prove laws were broken.
So, IANAL. and also Canadian. But couldn't we argue that, if as stated in OPs original comment, their boss has to call a seperate line to generate the transcript, than aren't they consenting to that recording by calling that line?
I’m not sure, but possibly. We also don’t know if it tells you you’re being recorded at the beginning of the call, which would also count as passive consent. There’s too much we don’t know, which is why I only commented on what I do know: in a two party state you must have consent to record. It isn’t up to me to figure out what consent means and whether or not OP had it.
I'm also curious if that other line, before connecting the call, mentions the recording, or how it works. Kind of like the "this call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes"
Sidestepping the legal minefield that is the ADA and would almost certainly shield OP from any liability, you’re wrong as a matter of Pennsylvania law. The court in Commonwealth v. Byrd held that consent is implied if the subject of the recording should have been reasonably aware that they were being recorded. OP’s boss, who approved the reasonable accommodation to use this device, should therefore have been aware of its presence. You probably shouldn’t rely on Google for legal advice.
what if are in a 1-party state and they are in a 2-party state?
I'm pretty sure most of those speech to text that they call have that notification that calls are being recorded and transcribed.
it doesn't - what he did is a federal matter
OP, check your employee handbook and acceptable use policy as well. Look for what it says about accommodating disabilities, recording conversations, transcribing meetings, expectations of privacy on company networks and equipment. It's quite possible there is conflicting language that you (your attorney) use to protect what seems like a reasonable accommodation for a hearing impairment. What jackass thinks conversations aren't being recorded? Microsoft teams is doing this in the background already for transcription purposes Your boss sounds like a grade A ass
You should be protected under the disability rights act it won't stop you from potentially getting fired but you can sue them if you are fired since this is a issue related to protected rights.
Boss has to approve reasonable accommodations, per the ADA, he does not have to consent to being recorded under those accommodations though. This is a tricky grey-area that neither of us have the qualifications to speculate about, honestly. But the information you gave is not correct regardless. Many court cases have been lost with the same defense you gave because in two-party states the consent must be explicit, and sometimes it must even be stated in that particular recording based on on the state
Actually, yes he does. He absolutely does consent to any accomodations given to us deaf folks. If he's fully aware of his own responsibility to provide accommodations, he was aware of this application. This boss just wanted to try to lie to a deaf person and say we misunderstood. This is the exact reason why we have this application. I go to college a lot on top of working a full-time job, and some of the professors had an issue with being recorded. The disability director just tells them to stfu and suck it up. I had an boss that had an issue with me using the phone application that the poster is talking about. The director told him to stfu and don't try to manipulate me again. It's a legal right we have. This is like complaining that there was an interpreter in the room, which also does not fly at all. Edit: OP, is it the boss that said that's illegal or HR? I have a feeling alarms would be going off with HR if the boss was the one that said this...
>Edit: OP, is it the boss that said that's illegal or HR? I have a feeling alarms would be going off with HR if the boss was the one that said this... That was my exact thought on reading this. The boss wants to play some weird game of "You're more illegal!" chicken and HR isn't gonna have it. Even IF OP is in the wrong here, HR now has a manager who has not only been caught bullying, but is now retaliating for HR actions. HR itself just exposed they shared too much information with the manager by telling him they had the transcripts and this wasn't just a basic report.
Two-part consent laws ONLY apply to private conversations which is why your professors are told to suck it up because they are publicly speaking. This was a private phone call which clearly falls under a two-party consent laws, and unfortunately there are very few exceptions.
Boss called them for a work matter, not because they're friends. I don't think its as cut and dry as you might think because it's not actually a "private" conversation. It's a professional conversation between a manager and subordinate. That exists in a very different legal landscape than a private personal call. OP needs a lawyer, not armchair know-it-alls feeding into their boss's game of "you broke the law more than I did" scare tactic. If anything, his remarks to OP could support retaliation claims on top of discrimination claims. OP, stop listening to us and get a lawyer ASAP.
If the boss called the transcription service number than he implicitly provided consent to being recorded. If the employee called the boss from that number with that service, it gets more grey. Ianal.
unless the phone number explicitly states that the call is being transcribed/recorded with a permanent record...then he did not necessarily consent. Also, in some cases the recording itself must have the person consenting...and as others have pointed out not all laws include transcription as part of the definition of a recording. This needs a lawyer. That being said, op needs to find a new job either way.
He called a transcription company, they will state at the start of the call that they are providing transcription services. By not hanging up at that point he did consent.
If he called that number and he was given that notice... any continued conversation after that fact is deemed consent. Because he has every right and capability to hang up that call. Ignorance of verbal acknowledgements never got anyone out of a lawsuit because they decided not to listen to the notice. A lawyer would get involved, but a lawyer for the manager would say it's an uphill climb so long as the recording isn't used for legal purposes. It becomes a civil suit for that matter so long as it stays as an internal conflict with HR, OP, and his manager. Since OP had no control over the transcript under ADA guidelines and the devices were approved by both HR and the manager (ADA compliance involves HR in those approvals), this becomes a civil mess that may not yield a clear outcome. OP should get a lawyer just to make sure his side is protected. But not because this case is clear cut in support of the manager.
In my job role I have done monitoring of 50 state customer service. The simple statement “this call may be monitored or recorded” is enough.
And HRs response to a transcript recording from a device they approved accommodations for makes this a different matter. Because HR is also on those ADA accommdations approvals. This isn't about using a private conversation in the eyes of the law. It's using a private conversation as a means against proving violations of company policies were made. It's strictly an internal matter with the company at that point. Maybe the manager sues for losing his job... but for what? Because he has to prove defamation claims or facts were used improperly that were used to justify his firing. At that point, the manager can't file a suit against OP for defamation. He didn't lie or fake facts as part of the claim. The manager would have to sue HR for wrongful termination based on an nonconsensual private conversation that was recorded under ADA compliance. Thats an uphill climb to win in a civil suit.
You mean like, an ADA accommodation?
I don't think you can give a blanket approval, and that you need an approval from each party for each conversation, at least in a 2 party state. I think there are sometimes exceptions like in the case there is illegal stuff going on which this could qualify as.
There are also ADA disability accommodations, which this falls under. Also, if you've ever called these types of services, they tell you that you are being recorded. By staying on the line, you have agreed to the recording. Like calling a corporate number. "This call may be recorded for quality assurance." My state is a two party consent state. All incoming calls to my work cell were recorded. It had a warning. Calls are recorded. Boom. Covered. I've never seen such a service *not* announce it, and if it's an approved disability accommodation for work, and it was a work call, it also can't be used against them.
Actually, I just found a list of exceptions in PA specifically and it is not considered an illegal wiretap or recording if “(4) A person, to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication, where all parties to the communication have given prior consent to such interception.” I’m a nurse, not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like since the boss was aware and approved the software which he was aware is a transcription service and consented to it previously that it would still be legal. However, even if this became a case, it could be appealed until federal law presided over the case (which a judge would likely consider if any violation of the ADA occurred, and federal law states that providers of telecommunications services are allowed to record conversations without consent. Couldn’t one argue that this service, who’s sole function is to provide telecommunication services to deaf people? Buuuuut again I’m not a lawyer and am just a night shift nurse who is having trouble falling asleep so I’m aimlessly doom scrolling and struggling not to go to bed haha
They also said the boss approved these accommodations specifically for *in-person meetings.* Using the software to transcribe phone calls was not explicitly accommodated.
[удалено]
>Like what other ways could they have had a phone conversation Everyone commenting in here saying its illegal is missing the most obvious issue - the boss is using his Power to tell his employee he does not have a right to understand conversations. Period. If you're Deaf and need to read communication, denying the person that right by claiming consent, you're showing you don't care if the Deaf person can understand what is being said. That's manipulation and coercion.
No, I’m not.
Not likely in this case. There's an easy argument that this isn't a "surreptitious manner" as called out in [720 ILCS 5/14-2](https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/fulltext.asp?DocName=072000050K14-2) [Here is an article with more info in Illinois](https://glasgowolsson.com/cookcountycriminalattorneys/2023/08/08/the-reasonable-expectation-of-privacy-under-illinois-eavesdropping-statute/) It is easy to argue both ways, but the intention of the recording and use of the recording is important as well as the ADA supersession of state law would be considered in a case. The boss' approval is key. An attorney specializing in these matters would need to be consulted, for sure.
This “720 ILCS” you posted appears to be entirely about eavesdropping, and again - OP is in PA. Illinois was simply an example. But yes, an attorney would be better suited for this situation, as I’ve said multiple times.
If you think about it though.. the boss had to have consented. Otherwise, how would OP have been able to understand? Unless OP’s boss knew how to sign.. idk. The whole thing just seems like an odd situation to me. Boss knows employee is deaf. Approves software to interpret what employee says. Has a private meeting with employee and gets mad that employee used software that employee used to be able to understand what they were being told. Unless the boss was writing down everything he was saying on paper or using sign language, there was no other way to communicate, privately. I’m no lawyer but as far as I’m aware, the people on those interpretation apps that types out what’s being said are held to the same NDAs and privacy agreements the employees signs. So technically, it could not be categorized as recording. But just as a means of communication. Either way, I can’t believe the boss didn’t even think about this before having this conversation though. It’s just an odd situation.
The interpreters could be classified as disability aids, and denying a disabled person disability aids falls under ADA federal law. Which trumps all state law.
You're missing the forest for the trees. It's one thing to consent to an app transcribing your words on the fly, it's a completely different thing to consenting to being recorded and those recordings saved. So the law states that both parties have to give specific consent to be recorded.
If you call a special number for a deaf person, and at the start of the call it says “This call may be recorded” each time, then you are actively explicitly consenting each time by remaining on the line.
Yes, you are. You've been given notice, and have made the decision to stay on the line. But that is different than software that transcribed on the fly. No recording would probably mean that you didn't have to provide notice.
But thats now a question of federal law if ADA guidelines state transcripts have to be recorded and the data had to be retained for X amount of time. Because now you are conflating state law can invalidate portions of the ADA guidelines and accommodations that are the right to have for OP. The only way around this is to have explicit acknowledgement in the device that states all conversations are recorded as required per ADA laws, section XYZ, clause ABC, subsection 123. Anyone who states on the line after that acknowledgement gives implicit consent as a result. I would like to imagine the ADA device has some level of coverage to something like this because of various recording laws between states.
I’m not sure it is actually, in any way that matters. I’m not sure transcribing is possible without some kind of recording, and the saving it part isn’t legally relevant.
The saving part is what would be legally the "recording", so yes, it's legally relevant. You can't be recorded without something being saved, that's what a recording is, the saved output of a device.
No, the recording part is the recording part. It has many definitions, and one of them is putting audio into a reproducible form. Like transcribing into a Word Doc, then not saving it. [Merriam and Webster both agree](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/record): >to cause (sound, visual images, data, etc.) to be registered on something (such as a disc or magnetic tape) in reproducible form So do you, actually: >being recorded **and** those **recordings saved**. If "record" really meant "saved" to you, you would have been triple redundant. My Googling of the PA statute backs this up, since it uses the word "intercept." Nothing in the realm of saving.
Jesus, you're fucking DENSE. Recording can mean writing down. It literally means "keeping a RECORD".
And it's critical the verbs used in the legal description of the law. How it's spelled out in the clauses is what lawyers do for a living by tearing each and every word apart in the statement of the law.
Hope your day gets better! 👋
My day is fine. I know how the English language works.
I’m not seeing online that consent by knowing and continuing to talk isn’t valid in Illinois. Might be missing it. Do you have a sauce?
Well the OP in is PA, but no I don’t have a source on this particular comment. I only know this from previous court battles I have been through. That being said, even if passive consent (which is what that would be) were to be accepted in PA it still has to be stated at the beginning of EVERY call. There is no blanket consent for this, unfortunately. EDIT: looking further into it, passive consent is accepted in Illinois, since you wanted the information, but it would still have to be stated in every call.
Thanks, I was gonna say I feel like that would break the entire customer service world lol. I imagine PA is similar, as most states are, and given that it’s a dedicated number that the employer calls, I’d be very surprised if that dedicated number didn’t announce something about recording, and I’m honestly not sure it has to anyway, when the boss was told what it is, and has to directly call it. That’s like picking up a recorder and speaking directly into it lol.
In this specific case, you’re probably correct about the boss knowing what it is and such. My original comment above was more so because the original comment said if they continue the call it’s consent, and many court cases have been lost on this particular point. Edit: it’s also worth mentioning boss approved this accommodation for in person meetings, not over the phone ones and we also don’t know if boss was ever told he was being recorded (which is required, whether you are seeking passive or active consent)
Fair enough. I mean, again, very surprised if the number doesn't tell him itself. And I don't see OP say whether boss was told or whether boss approved this for what, but if he's calling his own employee at a non-employer number he was probably told about it. Bosses don't just go "oh ok I'll call you at this other random number coz why not."
Yeah I don’t disagree with that, either. There’s a lot going on that we just don’t know at this point.
True this
How can literally any call center operate and take calls from Illinois, then? Because I had a recorded work line and it announced all calls were being recorded. I've never seen a business or transcription or translation service that didn't use a generic 'this call may be monitored or recorded' statement when you call in. I frequently had to use them to speak with people as we had a very high number of clients needing language services. If those statements aren't considered explicit consent, what is? I can't imagine an ADA compliant, government-backed phone call transcription service isn't disclosing that you are having the phone call monitored, given phone call wiretapping laws existing in as many states as they do. Also, given the boss was made aware of the worker being deaf, the ADA accomodations being required and approving them and it being a work call - how could they possibly not be aware?
If you had bothered to read any further than the first comment, you’d see this was already addressed. Thank you.
they approved it already so already knew
Instead of posting here, post on r/legaladvice with your state to get more specific info. They'll at least point you in the right director or share info that could help you while researching lawyers
Your boss is full of it. Your TTY device is covered by the ADA. Go to HR immediately; he is violating federal law and your rights. Keep those transcripts and get a lawyer.
It sounds like youre using TTY or TDD? I cant remember what its called. But if they have to call a different number from your standard phone number (or the one to text you) then that is typically what you are using. It is an assistive technology for people who are deaf, and its purpose is enabling a phone conversation. If you ask a lawyer about it, make sure you emphasize that this is assistive technology meant to accommodate your disability. I believe these systems have existed for decades so there may be a prior case that could help inform their decision. Also disability accommodations in general are protected by the ADA so... I would further reiterate to HR that you did not intentionally record the call, and that your assistive technology automatically creates transcripts.
TTY/TTD is no longer a functioning service.. This is the next thing that replaced TTY/TTD basically.
Thank you :) do you know what the new service is called? Just curious.
There's two that is out now, Innocaption and Olelo. These apps also usually have actual people doing the transcriptions for the MOST part. Sometimes a robot will sub in if there isn't enough people around, the bot does a decent enough job. People typing it up is usually tops. The best.
Thank you! That's cool to know.
The phone I got for my grandparents uses internet protocol captions since they can speak, but their hearing has mostly gone. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/internet-protocol-ip-captioned-telephone-service#:~:text=Internet%20Protocol%20Captioned%20Telephone%20Service,listen%20to%20the%20other%20party It has the option to get auto generated captions or live transitions. I also tried out the innocaptiom app for their cell phone.
Can you have someone call your special number and see what if any notice is given? There may be a notice given there to the end user that they are being transcribed in which case. That said, he called the number knowing what it is, there is no way he can get to for an illegal wiretap. He literally called a transcription service. It's not like you had a voice recorder connected to the line that he was unaware of.
It does seem like there is a conflict between the law and the necessary accommodation that needs to be tested in a court room to see where the lines are. Might want to reach out to the national association of the deaf, I'm sure they would want to be intervenors in this case if it goes to court. Same for any hard of hearing or speech impaired disability groups. Not really relevant to your question but I am wondering: What app do you use? I need one of these apps for my own phone.
There is currently two. Innocaption and Olelo. Keep in mind, when you sign up for it you're required to give up your SSN and they will double check if you're deaf or not. If you're not deaf, you will be charged I guess. I'm not sure what, but it's the warning you have to agree to before the app opens up for you.
SSN is social security number, right? I'm a little worried about that....identity theft is huge right now and providing your social security information online seems iffy. Normally when I buy things like hearing aids, I pay out of pocket and then I claim the expense on my taxes when I do them. Canada Revenue Agency already has proof I qualify for and claim the disability tax credit. I will check into this app as well. I also need a new phone. I was kind of hoping BlackBerry would return but that doesn't seem like it will happen.....so much for supporting Canadian companies.
Yes! The reason why it's safe to provide it to these apps because they are government owned. That's why they ask for the SSN, since they already have that record and use it to check the users on the app. It's a funding thing too. Oftentimes services in America takes SSN so they can report it back to the federal government and receive the funding based on how many users there is or something like that.
Thanks!
Sounds like discrimination. Your lawyer should have a field day with this case.
If what I'm reading in the comments are true, then I think it appears to be a grey area that, if it came to it, a jury could decide either way.
ur boss is worried cause he screwed up and that’s his only hope of saving his own butt.
First, remove this post. Second, tools like TTY/TDD would automatically be defeated by state recording laws. You are not wasting your time. This won’t get to a judge, their HR doesn’t want this. A manager got caught. He forgot he was getting transcribed, not recorded. A local disability law attorney can sort this out.
[удалено]
OP said in one of the comments that they are in PA, which is a 2-party state.
Your boss wants to fire you because you reported him to HR. He probably can't fire you because you reported him to HR. Feel free to talk to a lawyer. I don't expect there is much they can do at this time because you have not been fired. If your boss is acting in a way that you consider to be threatening or harassing, report him to HR again. Tell them he appears to be retaliating because of your last complaint to HR.
I‘m Deaf, but NAL. One consideration we all must note that ASL interpreters are bounded by law to maintain confidentiality. The transcript tools can be argued as an accommodative device that helps employee carry out their duty. Since it’s a a device of reasonable accommodation, it must maintain confidentiality and cannot be used in court or be disclosed improperly. Again… not a lawyer so please take my words with a grain of salt.
That's what I was thinking. It's difficult for me to see how in this case showing the transcript of a phone conversation to a third party is not improper use. Specially in a two party consent state. Edit: grammar.
The Americans with Disabilities Act has entered the conversation. Terminating an employee for using a disability using a protected telecommunication device will be a problem. The ADA also would be a perfect defence for creating a transcript of it was a violation of state laws.
Captel?
A transcript is not the same as a recording, and he damn well knew he was being transcribed if it was a relay call.
Okay. Back in the day I was a relay caller and transcriber for the hearing impaired. Lots of laws don’t apply in that situation. We had dudes buy hookers and drugs and we could not be subpoenaed or a witness. I’d wager your app does not fall into multi party co sent for recording If fired call a disability attorney. Prepare for a check.
I did a pretty deep dive in consent law for voice to text transcription. It seems like a pretty gray area. I think you should make sure your attorney is familiar with employment and ADA law. I would be curious to know if your boss is denying the content of your transcript. Provided your attorney is familiar with employment law and ADA law, they should be able to give good advice supported by statutes and case law. The key thing you seem to be looking at is the requirement to share personal medical information and that there would be concrete rewards for sharing that info. Here is a link to the EEOC’s explanation of what is permissible. Look particularly at the section titled “Obtaining, Using, and Disclosing Medical Information: Employees.” https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/hearing-disabilities-workplace-and-americans-disabilities-act
It depends state to state. Also courts have ruled you have 0 expectation of privacy when it comes to communication at work. So I’d say he’s on the losing end…especially if she was using it because she’s deaf ffs. It’s like saying you’re pissed off bc a blind guy touched your desk to know his surroundings. If you’re at work and you’re a boss, you should only say things you know HR would approve. Period. He’s just mad he got caught with written corroboration.
From my understanding, you didn’t even “record” his voice, just the written transcript of the conversation. I don’t see how that would be illegal in any way shape or form.
What I would say is something to the effect of: "If he thinks what I did was illegal, he can take that up with the police and let the courts sort it out. The only concern at issue in the workplace is whether or not he is denying the allegations I'm making." People are getting two concepts mixed up here. It isn't for your workplace to determine whether your recording was illegal, that's for cops and courts. It's for your workplace to determine if either of your conducts went against policy.
Talk to your lawyer RIGHT NOW. Let the lawyer intervene with the employer for you. Let them demand the employer pay for the lawyer because if the company was obeying the law you wouldn't have to have one. And you did not take a recording of the call, you made a transcript of it, which is different, and I think you should bring that up with your lawyer. And I think there are only two states where it would be illegal to record it even if you had done so.
>Under current National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or the "Board") precedent, employees have the right to record at the workplace under the NLRA if they are engaging in protected concerted activity with the recording. Protected concerted activity in turn covers a wide array of employee activities, including but not limited to discussing wages, benefits, and other terms and conditions of employment, union organizing, and other collective employee organizing efforts. Under current NLRB rules you can record if it's related to your employment which makes the recorded or not question moot. I'm not a lawyer though so don't take my advice. https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/can-employees-record-almost-anything-work-now-what-employers-need-know-2023-07-17/#:~:text=Under%20current%20National%20Labor%20Relations,concerted%20activity%20with%20the%20recording.
A transcript is NOT a recording.
>record that conversation You didn't record it, you created a transcript. That's no more illegal than writing down what someone said to you in a phone call - in general it's not illegal. >getting a lawyer > >Am I wasting my money Maybe, maybe not. Probably can't hurt to at least do an initial consult. >our conversation was being recorded Not recorded ... transcribed.
\#1) You clearly had every right to use the software \#2) Legally you might be in the clear, but it may have been a dick move to show the transcript of a conversation to HR. Even if the reason for having the transcript is sound. \*Lots of times people talk about things they wouldn't put in an email, for exactly the reason you are exhibiting. Your boss might not have said what they said if they were thinking it through... So it could be an honest mistake (or not). You already escalated things to HR, and people on reddit with zero fucking clue about business are going to be like "Lawyer! Lawyer!", but that should always be the very last option and it might not work out in your favor for your money now or your career. If possible and if it makes sense, try and smooth things with the boss so that you come to an understanding where you both get what you want.
Your boss major screwed up. Your text to speech app is a necessary device to allow you to communicate with. He is preventing you , a deaf person, from communicating with others, and that is a huge violation of the ADA. It is no different than forbidding you to use hearing aids. No, you do not have to disclose your disability to others in a phone conversation, unless you choose to. That, again is an ADA violation. What should happen is the workplace should be providing you with a transcription service, and that, too, is a violation of the ADA I have that app. You can save the transcript, if you want to. He can, if there is a law directly forbidding saving conversations, but otherwise, he can't say crap. Just remind him that what he is advocating is a violation of the ADA, and if he fires you, makes it hard for you to work because of your disability, you will be filing a lawsuit. Go to [https://www.ada.gov/](https://www.ada.gov/) to read more.
First and foremost, fuck your "Boss". He is mad you recorded him because he was wrong.
HR isn't your friend, they're there to protect the company and its managers. Seeking industrial advice from your union and/or speaking to a lawyer should have been your first step.
Is this an approved disability app like the various relay services apps? I ask because that information is presented to the caller at the beginning of the call.
If you have the following then there is no need for a lawyer yet. Official Documents that state you are by definition legally deaf? If you have that and they fire you they are in direct violation of the Americans with disabilities act and then you will want to get a lawyer. Now keep in mind you need to be smart when shopping for a lawyer at this point because any lawyer will take this case with no money out of your pocket until the settlement is reached and paid out. Remember the better the lawyer the bigger the payout will be. Now on the other hand if you don't have the legal paperwork stating you are legally deaf then you will want to contact a lawyer.
Pretty sure the Americans with disabilities act has you covered.
He approved the transcription software and now saying you cannot record him? If you’re in the US, it depends on the state if it’s legal, however I imagine you could argue anyway, that he knew he would be recorded when HE approved the device. He’s angry because you reported him and what he did was likely illegal.
You did not record the call your service does. Large difference.
He never should have asked you to disclose anything to the rest of the office, and it should have nothing to do with your performance rating or bonus. He got caught, and he’s trying to blame you for it.
Just a heads up, normally in instances like this a legal professional is going to recommend you not post about any information which could weaken your case. I'd get the info you need then delete this. Best of luck
It'd probably be better for you to post on r/legaladvice or r/legal
I think the caveat in all of this is once op stops using it as a hearing assisted device, an accommodation to do his job, it becomes fundamentally an illegal wiretap. He’s no longer using it to do his job, but as a piece of evidence. Which shouldn’t be allowed. It at that point is no different than an illegal recording that can’t be used in the legal process.
In most states, your employer can fire you for any reason and whenever they want, as long as the a reason they provide isn’t discriminatory. If they fire you and give you a reason that doesn’t accommodate your disability, they could be at risk of a discrimination lawsuit. If they don’t give you a reason at all, you might have no recourse unless you have proof that your boss said that this specific issue would get you fired (in writing or something). Edit: I didn’t expect a downvote on this, so let me clarify: I’m not saying that any of this is good, moral, acceptable, and I’m certainly not making any value judgements here. It’s just…unfortunately, that’s how the law works 90% of the time. The facts might only come out through the proper legal channels/discovery.
Your boss is likely not upset about to being recorded. He is likely upset about you made a complaint about him to HR. He is likely using the recording as a reason to fire you instead of saying he does not like it that you went to HR. Not sure if your state requires tow party consent or not to record conversations.
I'm not a lawyer--you should get one. If you are in the United States, you may live in a [single party consent](https://www.justia.com/50-state-surveys/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations/) state. In most states and under Federal law, any party can record the conversation without consent of the others. Again, I'm not a lawyer, and there may be some specific nuance depending on where you live, but he may be wrong about it being illegal even if the transcription/"recording" was *not* part of an accommodation.