Case Seeking Communication Access for Deaf People on Parole and Probation in Georgia Proceeds
%3Ciframe%20class%3D%22media-youtube-player%22%20id%3D%22media-youtube-ldyby8mxtog%22%20width%3D%22576%22%20height%3D%22324%22%20title%3D%22Case%20Seeking%20Communication%20Access%20for%20Deaf%20People%20on%20Parole%20and%20Probation%20in%20Georgia%20Proceeds%22%20src%3D%22%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FLDyBY8mxtog%3Fwmode%3Dopaque%26amp%3Benablejsapi%3D1%26amp%3Bmodestbranding%3D1%26amp%3Bplayerapiid%3Dmedia-youtube-ldyby8mxtog%26amp%3Brel%3D0%26amp%3Bshowinfo%3D0%26amp%3Bcolor%3Dwhite%26autoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%3EVideo%20of%20Case%20Seeking%20Communication%20Access%20for%20Deaf%20People%20on%20Parole%20and%20Probation%20in%20Georgia%20Proceeds%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
ATLANTA — A case challenging the Georgia Department of Community Supervision’s (GDCS) failure to provide adequate communication access to deaf and hard of hearing people on probation or parole will proceed after a federal judge issued an opinion rejecting the department’s motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
The American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Georgia, the National Association of the Deaf, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and Arnold & Porter represent impacted deaf and hard of hearing individuals in the case, Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision, and are seeking an order requiring GDCS to immediately provide American Sign Language interpreters, auxiliary aids and services, and reasonable modifications to deaf and hard of hearing people on parole or probation.
“This case illustrates one of the many ways the criminal legal system fails people with disabilities. By neglecting their responsibilities under federal disability rights laws, Georgia deprives deaf people on parole or probation a fair chance to successfully reenter society and maintain their freedom,” said West Resendes, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program. “The stakes could not be higher. People who cannot understand the conditions of their release or even communicate with their supervision officers risk being thrown back in prison for months or years because the system failed to make those supervision rules clear to them and failed to ensure that deaf supervisees have equal access to GDCS’ services as other supervisees.”
The Georgia Department of Community Supervision has a long history of failing to provide the required supports for deaf people and other people with disabilities. In our complaint, we detail how this failure often leads to an incorrect understanding of the conditions and requirements of their probation and parole, with potentially disastrous consequences. Our clients and others who cannot appropriately communicate with their parole officers or understand documents related to their release constantly face the risk of violating supervision terms and conditions that they are not even aware of, putting them in danger of incarceration. We also outline how this failure limits their ability to secure employment, maintain their health, and fulfill their basic needs.
“Georgia has the highest rate of people on probation or parole of any state in the nation,” said Andrés López-Delgado, ACLU of Georgia staff attorney. “The State owes it to deaf and hard of hearing people to provide them with the communication access they need to navigate this large and complex system. Our clients deserve nothing less.”
Brittany Shrader, NAD staff attorney shares, "Within the current structure of the criminal legal system, successful participation in and completion of parole or probation is necessary to ensure a seamless transition outside of incarceration; but without communication access, deaf and hard of hearing people are forced into a vicious cycle of undeserved punishment. This case seeks to break that cycle and allow deaf and hard of hearing people an equal opportunity to transition into and remain in the community."
“Today’s ruling is a long-awaited and significant step forward for deaf and hard of hearing individuals on probation and parole in Georgia who have routinely experienced systemic communication failures that have wide-ranging impacts on their lives,” said Tyler Fink, associate at Arnold & Porter. “We are dedicated to continuing to achieve equally effective communication and justice for these individuals.”
The lawsuit alleges the GDCS is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the United States Constitution.
This statement is available in American Sign Language here:
The order denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiffs’ motion to certify class is here: /legal-document/cobb-v-georgia-department-community-supervision-order-denying-motion-summary
More details about the case are here: /cases/cobb-v-georgia-department-community-supervision
Disability Rights
Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision
Disability Rights
Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision
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