Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 1167 (E.D.Mich.1994). There is no issue as to whether plaintiff and Irene were disabled, “otherwise qualified,” or that defendant received federal funds. The only dispute is whether defendant provided effective communication with plaintiff and Irene without a trained ASL interpreter. Courts have found violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA where sign language interpreters have not been provided for a qualified deaf person. See e.g. Rothschild v. Grottenthaler, 907 F.2d 286, 293 (2d Cir.1990) (finding that school system must provide an enrolled hearing student’s deaf parents with a sign language interpreter at “school initiated conferences incident to the academic and/or disciplinary aspects of their child’s education”); Randolph v. Rodgers, 980 F.Supp. 1051 (E.D.Mo.1997) (<HOLDING>), rev’d in part, vacated in part, 170 F.3d 850 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the same standards apply to claims under the ada and under the rehabilitation act (B) holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable (C) holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act (D) holding that neither the ada nor the rehabilitation act applies to prison employment (E) holding that prisoner whose primary means of communication was sign language was entitled to interpreter under the ada and rehabilitation act for disciplinary procedures medical care education programs and counseling
Output (English): holding that exemption under the ada does not preclude liability under the rehabilitation act