2.4 RID Ethical Practices System (EPS) & Disciplinary Procedures

A code of ethics without an enforcement mechanism is only advice. RID's Ethical Practices System (EPS) is that mechanism. The governing document is RID's Ethical Practices System Policy and Enforcement Procedures, approved by the RID Board of Directors on March 14, 2023 and revised July 15, 2024. Everything in this section comes from that document — and several widely repeated claims about the EPS (a 90-day filing deadline, a mediation track, a courtroom-style adjudication panel, "letters of censure") appear nowhere in it.

The EPS sits alongside the CPC rather than inside it. RID describes the NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct as "the baseline of professional standards," while the EPS Policy enumerates its own list of prohibited actions and behaviors that constitute "causes for actionable discipline." A complaint is assessed against the EPS Policy.

1. Scope and jurisdiction

The EPS reaches individuals who are, or were at the time of the alleged conduct, within RID's jurisdiction: RID members, RID certificants, and CASLI examination candidates. If the respondent was never a member, candidate, or certificant — or held a lapsed certification at the time of the alleged incident — the EPS dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction, and the complainant's recourse lies with a state licensing board, a civil rights agency, or the hiring entity.

The Policy also defines the professional space broadly. "Professional practice" includes interactions "preparatory to or in connection with providing or having provided sign language interpretation," and the Policy separately defines an online professional space — so conduct before and after the assignment, and conduct on social media, is inside scope.

2. Prohibited actions and behaviors

The Policy groups actionable conduct into four categories. You should be able to recognize which category a scenario falls into.

Two of these deserve emphasis because candidates routinely miss them.

Recommending resources is not automatically a violation of anything. The Policy carries an explicit safe harbour: it is not a violation to proceed with an assignment where the interpreter recommends additional resources and explains why, the consumer expressly declines, and the interpreter has the knowledge, ability, and skills to convey the essential aspects of the communication to standard.

Criminal convictions do not automatically disqualify anyone. RID states that convictions "will not automatically disqualify an interpreter from RID membership, eligibility for CASLI examinations, or RID certification, or automatically result in disciplinary sanction." What is mandatory is timely disclosure — within 30 days of notification of the matter, or at membership renewal or testing application, whichever comes first. Failing to disclose is itself a violation.

3. The six-step enforcement procedure

Step 1 — Filing a complaint or submitting a report

There are two entry routes, and confusing them is a common error:

• A complaint is a formal declaration by a consumer, interpreting professional, or interpreting entity that they experienced or witnessed harm violating the Policy. Complaints "may originate from any consumer, interpreting professional, or entity within or outside RID."
• A report is documentation of an alleged violation for which there is no named complainant. EPS may open a self-initiated report from any internal or external source — a court judgment, a media release, information about fraudulent credential use, or exam irregularities.

So the EPS does not require a narrowly defined "standing," and the absence of a named complainant does not end the matter. All submissions must include a signed statement authorizing RID to release the complaint and supporting material to the respondent and others as appropriate.

RID publishes no filing deadline or statute of limitations for EPS complaints.

Step 2 — Intake

EPS staff may schedule an intake meeting with the complainant. The intake may be conducted in the complainant's preferred language, expressly including ASL and ProTactile as well as written or spoken English. Staff collect the relevant documentation. For reports, staff gather the documentation themselves.

Step 3 — Complaint and report procedures

RID EPS has sole discretion over which complaints and reports to pursue, how to pursue them, and what action to take. On initial review the EPS may:

• Dismiss for (i) lack of jurisdiction, (ii) no violation — the allegation, even if proven, states no basis for action under the Policy (the Policy's own example is "a simple complaint that someone was unpleasant or rude on a single occasion"), or (iii) withdrawal of the complaint where EPS has not opened its own; or
• proceed to investigation, in which case the respondent is given notice and an opportunity to respond.

In an investigation:

• Both parties have thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of notice to respond, in their preferred language, and may submit supporting documentation and witness statements.
• Non-cooperation does not stop the process and may itself be a violation. EPS may impose an administrative suspension of membership and/or certification for failure to cooperate, lasting until final determination.
• EPS may obtain evidence directly from third parties without either party's permission.
• Timelines may be extended for good cause; parties are notified in writing of delays.

Step 3 (continued) — Decision and sanctions

If EPS determines the respondent violated the Policy, it may take private and/or public action. The published sanction list is:

NON-PUBLIC
  1. Non-public Reprimand and Warning — letter to respondent; record kept by RID
     and usable in a future proceeding as evidence of a pattern of harm.

PUBLIC / REMEDIAL
  2. Public Reprimand and Warning — name, violation(s), decision date and sanctions
     published in RID VIEWS and on the RID website; notice to the respondent's
     state or local licensing entities and employer of record.
  3. Supervision — a colleague monitors completion of the prescribed consequences,
     reports progress; respondent may have to pay the supervisor at fair market value.
  4. (Re)Education — assigned hours of topic-specific coursework, behavior training
     (e.g. anger or time management), and/or reflective written or video analysis.
     No CEUs may be earned for any portion of (re)education.
  5. Revocation of CEUs — where CMP protocols were violated; may include the whole
     current cycle's accumulated CEUs.
  6. Prohibition from presenting at RID CEU-bearing events, for a period set by EPS.
  7. Public Letter of Apology — bilingual (ASL/English), published in VIEWS and on
     the RID website, archived with the EPS violations page.

STATUS-AFFECTING
  8. Suspension of Certification and/or Membership — duration and conditions for
     lifting set by EPS; notice may go to licensing entities and the employer.
  9. Revocation of Certification.
 10. Temporary or Permanent Revocation of Eligibility for CASLI Examinations.
 11. Revocation of Membership — may bar eligibility indefinitely.

Note what is not on that list: there is no "letter of information," no "letter of censure," no "probation," and no monetary fine payable to a complainant. Note also what is on it and is easy to overlook — revocation of CEUs and revocation of CASLI exam eligibility are distinct, available sanctions.

Revocation is not automatically permanent. Where a revocation is non-permanent, the EPS specifies the conditions the respondent must meet to re-establish eligibility.

Step 4 — Respondent's right of review

Within thirty (30) calendar days of the notification letter, the respondent may contest the decision and/or the sanction by video or in writing. If no timely request is made, the EPS decision becomes final.

Step 5 — Appeals

• The request must include a detailed statement of grounds; the complainant is notified that review was requested.
• The EPS Review Board convenes quarterly, or on request of EPS staff after an appeal is filed. It considers the record plus any new information from either party, may request clarification, and may apply provisions of the Policy the original complaint did not identify.
• Decisions are by majority vote. The Review Board may affirm, modify, or reverse, or remand to the EPS if written procedures were not followed.
• The EPS notifies the parties within thirty (30) calendar days. The Review Board's decision is final.

There is no evidentiary hearing with counsel and expert witnesses, and the Policy sets no "clear and convincing evidence" burden — this is an administrative professional-conduct process, not a trial.

Step 6 — Records and publication

All notifications are in writing. Investigative case files and the disposition are retained indefinitely. Final decisions are publicized only after any appeal process has concluded, and public sanctions are published in official RID and EPS publications indefinitely. Separately, after a final public sanction RID may notify state licensing authorities, the federal government, the respondent's employer, and members of the public who seek information about certification or membership status.

One administrative detail the Policy singles out: members and candidates are solely responsible for keeping current mailing and email addresses in their RID account. Missing an EPS notice because your address was stale is not grounds for review or reconsideration.

4. What the CPC says about going to EPS first

The CPC itself sets an expectation that shapes many exam scenarios. Illustrative Behavior 5.3 directs interpreters to "approach colleagues privately to discuss and resolve breaches of ethical or professional conduct through standard conflict resolution methods; file a formal grievance only after such attempts have been unsuccessful or the breaches are harmful or habitual."

So on a case study involving a colleague's misstep, the decision tree is: was the breach harmful or habitual? If yes, direct escalation is appropriate. If it was a one-off, non-harmful lapse, the expected first action is a private, respectful conversation — and an option that jumps straight to filing is the wrong selection.

5. Comparison: EPS myths versus the published Policy