ACLU & NAD Seek Class Action on Behalf of Deaf Prisoners in Georgia Denied Communication Access
Prison and Probation Offices Fail to Provide Effective Communication to Deaf Individuals, Leading to Longer Sentences, Harsher Punishments, and High Rates of Recidivism
MACON, Georgia — The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Georgia, together with the National Association of the Deaf and Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, filed a motion in federal court to pursue a class action lawsuit on behalf of deaf and hard of hearing people imprisoned in and released from the Georgia Department of Corrections. The proposed complaint highlights how prison, probation, and parole systems fail deaf prisoners – leading deaf people to go to prison more often, stay longer, and return more quickly.
Prison administrators do not provide sign language interpretation to convey prison rules, to take classes required for release, or to participate in religious, medical or vocational meetings. In addition, the prison system does not provide visual or tactile alerts for daily or emergency events. The prison system then punishes deaf people for violating rules, not responding to verbal commands and not taking required courses – all of which were inaccessible to them.
"Despite decades of federal laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability, Georgia has utterly failed to provide any form of access to deaf and hard of hearing people in its prison and parole systems," said Howard A. Rosenblum, CEO of the National Association of the Deaf. "The prisons in Georgia have refused to provide deaf and hard of hearing people with qualified interpreters and accessible telecommunications devices such as videophones, making it impossible for them to call their loved ones, consult with their attorneys, engage in work release programs, access medical care, or any of the other services available to all other prisoners. These prison and parole issues are a national problem that must end, and it is our hope that this litigation brings that end sooner than later."
“American Sign Language and English are entirely different languages, complete with their own grammar, syntax and structure,” said Talila Lewis, Volunteer Director of Helping Educate to Advance the Rights of Deaf Communities (HEARD). “Georgia’s decades-long failure to provide qualified interpreters for imprisoned and returned people whose first or only language is ASL makes it all but impossible for them to access essential information about their cases, mandatory classes, prison policies and procedures, health and mental health care, parole and probation requirements, support after experiencing physical or sexual assault, and much more.”
After serving their sentence, previously incarcerated deaf people do not have access to information about the conditions of their release, probation guidelines or instructions from their probation officers. Consequently, deaf people are at greater risk of recidivism simply because the system is designed to prevent them from successfully reintegrating into society. This perpetuates a cycle of incarceration targeting people with disabilities.
The complaint also illustrates the human toll communication deprivation has on imprisoned deaf people. Without interpreters or aids, GDOC inmates miss meals, showers, important announcements and medications because they are announced using only aural cues. They are unable to understand appointments with health care professionals, mental health therapy sessions and communication related to other life-threatening health conditions. With no videophones to communicate with family, deaf prisoners cannot maintain community ties, and have greater difficulty re-integrating into society than their hearing and non-disabled peers.
“We are enormously grateful to HEARD for its years of work elevating the stories of incarcerated deaf people, and leading us to this case. All the deaf people we were in contact with had been denied their right to communicate – with their attorneys, with their families, with medical personnel, with parole and probation officers,” said Susan Mizner, Director of the ACLU Disability Rights Program. “As a result, they have longer sentences, higher recidivism, and, we believe, high rates of being wrongfully incarcerated. Deaf folks are a clear example of how the criminal legal system fails to accommodate people with disabilities.”
“Everyone deserves a second chance. Deaf individuals deserve the same opportunities as other incarcerated individuals to access educational and other programs that can reduce their sentences, get out of taxpayer-funded prisons, and rebuild their lives,” stated Sean J. Young, Legal Director for the ACLU of Georgia. "Central State Prison’s failure to provide those opportunities constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution.”
The complaint alleges the GDOC is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the United States Constitution. It was filed in the United States District court for the Middle District of Georgia.
The press release is online here: /news/aclu-seeks-class-action-behalf-georgian-deaf-prisoners-denied-communication-access
This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
Disability Rights
Coen v. Georgia Department of Corrections
Disability Rights
Coen v. Georgia Department of Corrections
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
CaliforniaDec 2024
Disability Rights
Powers v. McDonoughPowers v. McDonough
Every night, thousands of veterans sleep without shelter on the streets of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs owns hundreds of acres of land in prime West Los Angeles—land directly adjacent to a VA medical facility that was once earmarked to house veterans, but today is instead home to private school sports fields and an oil well. In November 2022, a group of unhoused veterans and a non-profit organization filed suit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans’ abilities to access the benefits they are entitled to by law, leaving many stranded on the streets after serving our country. The veterans sued the VA under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal statute that prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek the construction of significant units of permanent supportive housing on the The VA argued that a provision of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”)— a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefits determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Should the court accept this position, it would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to have their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and other generally applicable nondiscrimination statutes enforced. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals. -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Lawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to ProceedLawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to Proceed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today rejected the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law firm Sheppard Mullin. The lawsuit contends that the District’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities by deploying armed police officers to address the vast majority of mental health crises while sending trained medical professionals to most other health emergencies. “This ruling moves us one step closer to bringing essential, life-saving emergency mental health care to D.C. communities. Qualified providers are best equipped to handle mental health emergencies with skills and compassion; police with a gun only serve to escalate, handcuff, and arrest,” said Ashika Verriest, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Far too many people are harmed at the hands of police during a mental health crisis, or simply receive ineffective care. This must end.” The plaintiff in the case is Bread for the City, a D.C.-based nonprofit supporting underserved communities. The lawsuit contends that the District’s unequal response to mental health crises violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling will move the case forward, allowing the ACLU to show in court that a fully functioning mental health crisis response system that sends a medical, rather than a law enforcement, response to most mental health crises is legally required. “Relying on mental health professionals, not armed police, to serve people experiencing mental health crises is not just logical, it’s required under the law. Today’s decision made clear that communities can’t single out mental health emergencies for worse services than other health emergencies,” said Michael Perloff, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia. The ruling comes on the heels of a recommendation made in a similar case filed against Washington County, Oregon by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard Mullin. On August 30, 2024, a federal magistrate judge recognized that sending police, rather than health providers to a mental health crisis, may be discrimination against people with mental health disabilities in violation of federal law. The magistrate judge recommended that the case proceed. More details about the case are accessible here: /cases/bread-for-the-city-v-district-of-columbia -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint