Something I’ve noticed over the years is how quickly workplaces can become comfortable relying on one person to communicate with a Deaf employee.
Maybe there’s someone on staff who knows a little sign language. Perhaps they have a Deaf family member, took an ASL class or simply feel comfortable communicating with Deaf people. Naturally, they become the person everyone turns to whenever communication is needed.
At first, it seems like a wonderful thing. The Deaf employee has someone they can communicate with, the hearing coworker is happy to help, and management feels relieved that things are working out.
But I often wonder, are things really working out, or has everyone simply become comfortable with the arrangement?
As a Deaf educator, I encourage hearing people to learn ASL. I love seeing people become more confident, especially those who were initially nervous about communicating with Deaf people. When someone makes an effort to learn our language, it means something. It helps build relationships and creates opportunities for conversations that might not have happened otherwise.
But there’s something I want people to understand. Learning sign language and becoming someone’s main source of communication access are two very different things.
Imagine starting a job where everyone around you can communicate freely with one another, but you have to depend on one particular coworker to understand what’s happening. When there’s an announcement, someone calls that person over. When instructions are given, you’re told to check with them. When a meeting takes place, they sit beside you and try to explain what everyone is saying.
You appreciate their help, of course. But how would you feel knowing that your ability to participate at work depends on whether that person is available?
What happens when they’re busy with their own responsibilities? Do you wait until they have time? What if they’re away for the day? Do you miss the meeting, ask someone else for a summary or simply carry on without knowing everything that was discussed?
Now imagine being in that position every day.
I think this is something many hearing people don’t realize because they rarely have to think about how information reaches them. They can overhear conversations, ask questions whenever they want, join discussions and receive information directly from different people throughout the workplace.
For Deaf employees, it isn’t always that simple, especially when the workplace hasn’t established accessible communication practices.
And when one coworker becomes the solution, something else happens. The Deaf employee may gradually lose the opportunity to communicate independently with everyone else.
Instead of approaching the Deaf employee directly, people begin going through the helpful coworker.
“Can you tell them about the meeting tomorrow?”
“Can you explain what the manager said?”
“Can you ask them if they understand?”
I’ve talked before about how important it is to communicate directly with Deaf people rather than speaking about us through someone else. This is another example of how easily that can happen, even when people have good intentions.
The coworker becomes the middle person, and before anyone realizes it, the Deaf employee is no longer having direct conversations with their own team.
There’s also another concern that I don’t think employers always consider.
Just because someone knows ASL doesn’t mean they’re qualified to interpret.
I often explain this during my training sessions. Someone may know enough signs to have a friendly conversation, but interpreting requires much more than that. It involves understanding two languages, accurately conveying information and following professional and ethical standards.
Think about a performance review, a disciplinary meeting or a discussion about a promotion. Would you want another coworker sitting there interpreting information about your performance, salary or personal concerns simply because they know some of your language?
Would you feel comfortable knowing that person might not understand everything being discussed or might unintentionally leave out important information?
And would you feel free to express yourself knowing that someone you work beside every day is now involved in a private conversation about your career?
These are things we need to think about before assuming that having someone who signs means communication access is covered.
I also think about the helpful coworker. They’re probably doing this because they genuinely care and want their Deaf colleague to feel included. But over time, what began as a friendly gesture can turn into an expectation.
They’re interrupted during their work, asked to explain conversations they weren’t part of and sometimes placed in situations they’re not trained or comfortable handling.
Is that fair to them?
And what happens if they make a mistake? Who becomes responsible when important information is misunderstood?
Sometimes I wonder whether employers recognize how much responsibility they’re placing on both employees simply because they haven’t taken the time to establish a proper communication plan.
The Deaf employee is expected to depend on someone, and the hearing coworker is expected to be available.
Meanwhile, everyone else carries on as usual.
This is where I believe we need to change how we look at accessibility.
I’ve worked with organizations that genuinely want to improve communication. They arrange Deaf awareness training, encourage employees to learn ASL and ask questions about how to become more inclusive. I appreciate that willingness because it creates opportunities for learning.
But I also remind them that accessibility is not about finding one person who can help. It’s about making sure the workplace itself allows everyone to participate.
If important information is only shared verbally, perhaps the organization needs to rethink how information is communicated. If meetings depend on someone explaining things afterward, perhaps the meeting process needs to change. If a Deaf employee requires an interpreter for certain situations, there should be a procedure for arranging one rather than expecting a coworker to step in.
And most importantly, employers need to have these conversations with their Deaf employees. Not every Deaf person uses ASL, and communication preferences differ. What works for one person may not work for another.
I don’t want people to misunderstand my message. I’m not suggesting that hearing coworkers should stop helping Deaf colleagues or that everyone needs an interpreter for every conversation.
Quite the opposite.
I want more hearing people to learn ASL, become comfortable communicating with Deaf people and build genuine relationships with us. I want workplaces where Deaf and hearing employees can communicate naturally, learn from one another and feel comfortable asking questions.
But I also want employers to recognize when someone’s kindness is being used to cover a gap in accessibility.
There’s a difference between a coworker choosing to help and an employee having no other option but to depend on that help.
One builds relationships. The other can create dependency.
And I think that’s where we sometimes miss the bigger picture.
When a Deaf employee doesn’t complain, management may assume everything is fine. When the helpful coworker continues stepping in, everyone may believe the arrangement is successful.
But have we ever stopped to ask the Deaf employee how they feel about it?
Do they feel comfortable asking questions? Can they approach their manager directly? Are they receiving the same information as everyone else? Do they feel independent in their position, or do they have to wait for someone to be available before they can fully participate?
Sometimes people become so accustomed to working around barriers that others stop recognizing those barriers exist.
That’s something I wish more organizations would reflect on.
Accessibility shouldn’t depend on whether someone is having a good day, has extra time or happens to know a few signs. It should be part of how the organization operates, regardless of who’s working that day.
I often tell people that accessibility benefits more than the person who needs it. Clear communication, better meeting practices, accessible information and shared responsibility can make a workplace better for everyone.
So the next time an employer proudly tells me, “We have someone who knows sign language, so we’re covered,” I would like them to consider a few questions.
What happens when that person isn’t there? Can the Deaf employee still participate in meetings, communicate with management and access important information? Or does everything suddenly become more difficult?
And perhaps the most important question is this:
If a hearing employee had to depend on one particular coworker to do their job every day, would we consider that an acceptable workplace arrangement?
I don’t think we would.
So why do we sometimes accept it for Deaf employees?
I value people who make an effort to communicate with us. Their kindness and willingness to learn can make a tremendous difference. But they shouldn’t have to carry the responsibility for an organization’s accessibility, and Deaf employees shouldn’t have to depend on someone’s kindness to receive equal opportunities.
Kindness makes a workplace better. But it should never be the thing holding accessibility together.
Because when that one helpful coworker is no longer there, the Deaf employee should still have the same opportunity to do their job, participate and belong.
