References
In D'Onofrio v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 964 F.3d 1014, 1016 (11th Cir. 2020) (see also here) - the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals relied upon and cited Dr. Shana Williams for her work in assisting Costco in implementation of effective communication for its Deaf employee, Deaf culture training, and education for employees who had direct contact with Deaf employees, this included the following statements by the court (internal citations omitted)
​
Choice of what would be effective communication
Witnesses introduced by Costco at trial, including Dr. Shana Williams, Director of Social Services, Center for Hearing and Communication, spoke of the effectiveness of VRI as a medium to facilitate communication between D’Onofrio and her managers during group sessions. Williams testified that in most situations, VRI is just as effective as an on-site interpreter for communicating with a Deaf individual. Williams also testified that while on-site interpreters would be the most preferable medium of interpretation in large-group meetings, such interpreters are by no means mandatory; VRI can be an effective alternative in such settings, even if it functions less efficiently than an on-site interpreters.
​
Furthermore, Williams made other statements to demonstrate that the VRI represented a reasonable accommodation. For one thing, Williams explained in her testimony that the way in which Costco had set up the VRI phones was “very effective.” The phones provided D’Onofrio with “an on-demand communicating tool to facilitate communication whenever [she] needed it,” and Costco deliberately located them in convenient locations around the warehouse, including placing one in the managers’ office, a location where informal coaching, counseling notices, and performance evaluations took place, and in the pharmacy consultation room.
​
​
Deaf culture training by Dr. Williams
​
Honoring D’Onofrio’s request for Deaf-culture training, Costco arranged for instruction to be provided by the Center for Hearing and Communication in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on March 1, 2013. The central objective of the training was to facilitate an interactive and open discussion on Deaf culture and good communication practices with Deaf individuals. The managers in D’Onofrio’s immediate chain of command attended the session.
As part of the training, Williams made a number of suggestions to assist D’Onofrio in her communication during Costco’s large-group meetings (i.e., “inventory meetings” and “warehouse meetings”) going forward. First, as to large group meetings, Williams suggested that Costco should consider providing D’Onofrio with an on-site interpreter, given that the VRI technology is considered less effective in this setting. Although Williams made clear there was no definitive number of people as to constitute a “group,” in her opinion, any gathering of three or more people could be considered a benchmark. Second, Williams suggested that Costco designate a small group of no more than three managers, with whom D’Onofrio was already comfortable, to act as the primary conduits for her day-to-day work interactions. These interactions would include providing directions to D’Onofrio, as well as serving as go-to contacts for questions or concerns she might have.
​
In preparation for the Deaf-culture training, Costco brought in Williams for a site visit with D’Onofrio. (Doc. 121 at 80–81). Williams and a colleague were joined by D’Onofrio and three of her managers: Ainsley Brown, Carol Sivon, and Jeff Weisler. (Id. at 81). The visit allowed Williams to “evaluate the environment” at the Pompano Beach warehouse. That way, Williams could do more than offer a stock, generic training session; she could “train and tailor whatever recommendations [she was] going to make to the environment that [was] being presented to” her. Williams testified that the visit was “very useful.”
As for the training session itself, Williams also testified that she “felt it went very well” and that “everybody was very amenable to the information they received.” D’Onofrio “was very happy with the session.” Likewise, Pack thought the training was “very interesting” and “informative.” (Doc 118, p. 168). Williams noted that, like the installation of the VRI equipment, the training program represented a significant, meaningful investment from Costco. Steve Powers even flew in for the training session, (Doc. 121, p. 83), which was significant, as Williams testified:
​
I train quite a bit, still do, and I haven’t ever seen a regional vice president flying for a training. I have never seen that. So I was very pleased and encouraged that upper management was really involved in this process.
All in all, Williams thought the Costco team “did a really good job” with the training, was “very open and receptive,” and went above and beyond what she typically sees from employers.
Individual training sessions with the supervisor
​
At that meeting, Pack and D’Onofrio “committed to coming back and meeting with [Williams] in a mediation session.” Pack also “offered to meet with [D’Onofrio] on site in their work environment every month and work through any concerns that she might have.” After the training session, Pack was “very proactive.” … Pack returned to the Center for one-on-one meetings with Williams. Those two meetings, Williams testified, were very educational. Pack came in “to see how he could respond [to D’Onofrio] better and what he could learn.” Williams recalled D’Onofrio’s complaint that Pack mumbled, so she worked with him on “clarity without exaggerated speech and tone.” Williams also testified that, at these one-on-one meetings, Pack was not guarded. He wasn’t resistant. He felt very sincere to me. He asked good questions. He seemed to take the information from our first session, bring it in practice, and then come back to me and ask me, well this seemed to work really well, this didn’t, what do you think, what can I do better. So he seemed pretty motivated and genuine.
​
​
Williams qualifications as an expert:
​
We recognize that Williams did not provide testimony as an expert witness. However, given her qualifications, which include being the Director of Social Services, Center for Hearing and Communication, and the fact that she served as the instructor for the Deaf-culture training, Williams’s opinion warrants consideration regarding the reasonableness of the VRI as an accommodation. And, at trial, Williams did attest to the technology’s effectiveness in facilitating communication between a Deaf person and non-deaf person, which, as she also explained, was a function of the technology’s reliance on an on-screen hearing and a speaking sign-language interpreter.