November 24, 2025—Morgan & Morgan, an injury law firm with offices nationwide, recently filed federal class action lawsuits against two legal support services providers, alleging they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Practices Act by charging defendants in 2023 and 2024 with extra fees for depositions that required sign language interpreters. The ABA Commission on Disability Rights interviewed Sharon Caserta, a Morgan & Morgan attorney, to learn more about them.
Morgan & Morgan has a Deaf and Disability Rights Unit, which was founded in 2016 to “provide a personalized path to justice for people who, due to a lack of accessibility and specialized legal assistance, may typically be underserved by the legal system.” Can you describe the Unit’s mission?
The Unit’s mission is to focus on cross-disability discrimination with an emphasis on representing Deaf or hard of hearing individuals, allowing them to work with an attorney fluent in ASL and staff that understand the unique cultural aspects of effectively working with the Deaf Community.
What motivated its founding? How has the Unit evolved since its founding — in size, scope, or focus? Are there particular types of cases or legal issues the Unit focuses on most frequently?
I started my legal career through an Equal Justice Works Fellowship where I created—what I believe to be—the first Deaf Unit at a Legal Aid office at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid (JALA). While working at JALA was a great experience, constant budget constraints made it difficult to litigate cases in federal court without the support that a better-resourced firm could provide. I was forced to turn down systemic discrimination cases because the clients either did not qualify for legal aid service due to their income or their residence was outside of JALA’s jurisdiction.
John Morgan, whose brother Tim Morgan was a wheelchair user, was approached to take on the Unit and provide the support needed to more broadly represent the Deaf community and others with disabilities. John Morgan quickly agreed, and hired me and my Deaf paralegal, Christine Stevens, a graduate of Gallaudet University, into the firm. Over the years, the Unit’s personnel has changed, but its focus remains on litigating a wide range of disability discrimination cases in employment, public accommodations, housing, and public services. The Unit seeks to handle cases with a broad impact, allowing redress that eliminates discrimination against persons with disabilities. We have had the pleasure of co-counseling with many firms and organizations that share our goals—including the National Association for the Deaf, Stein & Vargas, Disability Rights Florida, and the Florida Justice Institute.
Morgan & Morgan recently filed proposed federal class action lawsuits against two legal support services providers—US Legal Support, Inc. and Magna Legal Services, LLC—alleging that in 2023 and 2024, the defendants violated the ADA and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by charging Deaf individuals extra fees for depositions that required sign language interpreters. How did this issue come to your attention, and what made you think that this might be a systemic, industry-wide issue rather than a couple isolated incidents?
The Unit represented the putative Class Representatives—Mrs. Garza-Prevatt and Mrs. Tammy Torres—in their employment discrimination cases. Pending those lawsuits, we discovered that Magna and US Legal were allegedly subjecting Deaf people to these surcharges based simply on when an ASL Interpreter is present. After speaking with other disability rights practitioners and contacting the Defendants about the invoices, we also discovered that this surcharge has allegedly been an ongoing practice for some time.
Do you see this as a problem unique to these two companies, or part of a broader pattern among court reporting and legal support providers?
I believe—and my conversations with others support this belief—that the problem is not limited to these two court reporting providers. Many providers appear to charge an “interpreter fee” simply when a Spanish or other spoken language interpreter is present. Unfortunately, Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals are not protected from these fees in this context and therefore are subjected to this surcharge. Because they can charge LEP individuals for transcripts, court reporting services assume they have the same right to charge Deaf individuals. But thankfully Deaf individuals have some protection under the ADA to be shielded from this surcharge.
Are there other areas in the legal system where you see hidden costs disproportionately affecting people with disabilities?
Yes. Persons with disabilities often must undertake herculean efforts just to secure the access that the law already guarantees them. Too often, they bear the burden of teaching non-disabled stakeholders about their rights under laws that have been in place as far back as 1973. Despite all the years Deaf and Disabled people have been fighting, progress is not anywhere near where it should be—particularly in the legal and medical fields. Compounding this problem is the scarcity of attorneys who handle ADA or disability discrimination cases.
You began your career as a certified ASL interpreter, which gives you a unique perspective on this issue. The surcharge seems to assume that the presence of an interpreter added extra complexity for the court reporter. From your experience as a former interpreter and as a current attorney handling this case, how would you respond?
That assumption is baseless. The presence of a qualified ASL interpreter makes the job of a court reporter easier— not harder.
What is the difference between a court reporter and a CART (Communication Access Realtime Translation) provider? Is the distinction important in this context, and if so, why?
The court reporter’s role, in the context of these two class actions, is to transcribe the deposition’s content. After the deposition concludes, that content is reduced to paper and becomes the official transcript used by the court or parties, throughout the litigation. By contrast, CART is a reasonable accommodation that allows persons with various disabilities to simultaneously read what is being said during a deposition. While they can receive a transcript after the deposition, it is not the official transcript. However, unlike the court reporter, the CART reporter includes all sounds and noises in addition to the spoken words. These class actions do not implicate CART because the accommodation provided at the depositions were qualified ASL interpreters.
The plaintiffs were already engaged in pursuing employment discrimination lawsuits against their employers. They had alleged that they were experiencing discrimination from their employer but then were faced with what they say is another form of discrimination in the justice system. Why is it problematic when navigating the legal system itself presents barriers for people with disabilities?
Respectfully, the legal system—including lawyers, judges, clerks, law enforcement and others—lacks sufficient training to recognize when their actions run afoul of the ADA and other anti-discrimination statutes. It continues to be a huge barrier because many persons with disabilities remain voiceless and powerless to defend against this form of discrimination.
Beyond the financial costs, what impact do such surcharges have on an individual?
These lawsuits show that the mindset that Deaf individuals are a burden, or that accommodating them makes more work for others and therefore we should charge them—is still robust. Deaf individuals are not “reliant” upon ASL interpreters, but use them to be independent. Similarly, wheelchairs allow their users to navigate independently through their community—they do not confine them. These accommodations provide not only access but also freedom and the accompanying responsibility that comes with it.
More broadly, how might these kinds of barriers affect Deaf people’s willingness or ability to seek justice or engage with the legal system?
Deaf individuals—like all individuals—should be able to trust that their lawyers and the legal system are looking out for these types of inequities. Exposing this inequity validates what many Deaf individuals believe—that the system lacks the proper safety net.
Can you explain why you chose to pursue a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, which protects consumers from unethical or misleading business practices, alongside the ADA, and how the claim adds another dimension to the case?
It’s illegal to violate the anti-discrimination statutes and equally as pernicious to profit from those violations. Adding this claim illustrates the broad legal implications of the surcharge.
How might this case set precedent for other Deaf or hard-or hearing litigants in Florida or nationally? What outcomes are you hoping to achieve beyond reimbursement for the plaintiffs? What message do you hope this case sends to the legal profession and the justice system more broadly?
Our hope is that the continuum of providers in the legal system will undergo a full and meaningful review of the way they provide services and result in safeguards to ensure Deaf individuals—and all persons with disabilities—receive equal access.
Although not specifically required by Title III of the ADA, we also hope these lawsuits would catalyze the creation of positions in management which are accountable for ensuring all their services are accessible—from websites to their front doors, to hiring practices and beyond. This position would be responsible for providing training and creating and sustaining a mechanism for individuals with disabilities to contact them directly when they have accommodation questions and concerns.