Hearing-Impaired Massachusetts Prisoners Win ADA Case
On January 17, 2024, the federal court for the District of Massachusetts issued a ruling in a long-running case brought by hearing-impaired state prisoners, finding that the state Department of Correction (DOC) had violated their rights under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ch. 126 § 12101 et seq., as well as § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
Under those laws, deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners are entitled to reasonable accommodations so that they can communicate and participate in activities, programs and services to the same extent as non-disabled prisoners. A class-action brought in November 2015 by seven hearing-impaired prisoners who challenged the lack of such accommodations resulted in a partial settlement in May 2019.
That agreement obligated DOC to identify and track all prisoners with hearing impairments and post notices informing prisoners that they may request accommodations at any time during their incarceration. Prisoners identified as hearing impaired must then be assessed within 30 days; those who arrive in DOC custody with hearing-related medical devices, such as hearing aids, must be allowed to keep them pending an assessment.
DOC must also maintain files for disabled prisoners that document their accommodation requests, including whether they use ASL or need a qualified sign language interpreter. Hearing impaired prisoners must be identified by distinguishing marks on their bed book cards, ID cards and cell doors, to alert staff they may need assistance in case of an emergency. DOC must also ensure that appropriate care for hearing impaired prisoners is provided by its contracted medical provider, including treatment recommendations made by audiologists and other qualified hearing specialists.
Additionally, DOC must provide qualified sign language interpreters for a range of interactions with prison staff, including classification hearings, medical appointments, disciplinary hearings, grievance interviews, religious services, pre-release programs and educational or vocational classes. For medical appointments, video remote interpreting (VRI) may be utilized by DOC’s contract medical provider. Other prisoners may not be used as sign language interpreters for hearing impaired prisoners except in emergencies.
With respect to telecommunications, DOC must provide services “substantially equal” to those available to non-disabled prisoners, including videophones, video relay services, captioned telephones and TTY devices at all state prisons, at no cost. DOC must also supply a non-auditory real-time alert notification system with a receiver or pager using visual or tactile notifications. DOC staff must receive training related to the needs of hearing-impaired prisoners and prison policies must be revised to reflect the terms of the settlement. Moreover, DOC must take into consideration a hearing-impaired prisoner’s request for housing at a prison with other hearing-impaired prisoners. And a monitor appointed by the Court must evaluate compliance with the agreement’s provisions over its three-year term. See: Briggs v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., USDC (D. Mass.), Case No. 1:15-cv-40162.
The settlement did not address two reserved claims: costs and attorney fees for class counsel and “claims regarding the adequacy of DOC’s provision of notifications of safety announcements, emergency alerts and alarms, and emergency evacuations to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates.” After a bench trial on the latter claim in August 2023, the Court ruled that the prison system had “failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that it has provided a satisfactory and reasonable accommodation to deaf and hard-of-hearing class members who require effective access to their facilities’ system of alerting inmates to emergencies such as a fire.”
Accordingly, DOC had until May 16, 2024, to prepare and submit an effective emergency alert policy, which Plaintiffs would then have another 60 days to review. Until then, the case remains open, and PLN will update developments as they are available. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys with the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts and the Boston firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP. See: Briggs v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8316 (D. Mass.).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal cases
Briggs v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr.
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8316 (D. Mass.) |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Bench Verdict |
| Injunction Status | Granted |
Briggs v. Mass. Dep’t of Corr.
| Year | 2019 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USDC (D. Mass.), Case No. 1:15-cv-40162 |
| Level | District Court |
| Conclusion | Settlement |
| Injunction Status | Granted |