Beginning on July 4, 2014, the claimant, a deaf employee at Pacific Bell Telephone Co.’s Fresno location, attended conversations and meetings that did not have a sign language interpreter in attendance. The claimant claimed Pacific Bell’s failure to provide an interpreter constituted disability discrimination. The claimant filed a complained with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which first attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC sued AT&T Pacific Bell Telephone Co., now known as Pacific Bell Telephone Co. The EEOC alleged that Pacific Bell failed to accommodate the claimant’s numerous requests for a sign language interpreter during all conversations and meetings, formal or informal, and that this failure constituted a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defense counsel denied the EEOC’s allegations, asserting that the employee, who still works for Pacific Bell, can hear with hearing aids, read lips and converse. Counsel contended that Pacific Bell provided the employee with numerous job accommodations that have allowed him to do his job successfully for nearly two decades. The accommodations included, but were not limited to, a Sorenson videophone, a sign language interpreter at certain specified meetings and a higher cubicle wall at the employee’s request. Counsel contended that Pacific Bell also accommodated the employee by having the supervisor stand directly in front of him during short and informal daily huddles, which occurred prior to 2016, to enable the employee to read her lips. The supervisor also followed up with the employee, providing him with written summaries of the daily huddles and conversing with him about them. The EEOC responded that Pacific Bell’s actions did not effectively accommodate the employee., The EEOC sought monetary relief for the claimant, asserting that Pacific Bell’s alleged behavior deprived the claimant of equal employment opportunities, privileges and benefits of employment, which negatively affected the claimant as an employee. The EEOC also sought injunctive remedies to ensure that the claimant was provided the equal employment opportunities and benefits and privileges of his employment. It also sought injunctive remedies with the intention to correct and prevent future disability discrimination. The parties agreed that the employee did not sustain any economic damages. Although the EEOC contended that the employee did not enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment as non-hearing impaired employees, defense counsel asserted that the employee is a union-represented employee whose terms and conditions of employment are governed by a collective bargaining agreement and that the employee was not damaged or treated unlawfully in any way.