Settlement Ensures Communication Access for Deaf People on Parole and Probation in Georgia
ATLANTA — Deaf and hard of hearing individuals on parole and probation in Georgia have successfully settled a lawsuit challenging the Georgia Department of Community Supervision’s (GDCS) failure to provide them with accessible communication.
Under the terms of the settlement, GDCS has agreed to:
- Assess the communication needs of each Deaf and hard of hearing person when they start probation or parole.
- Create communication plans, which can include aids like sign language interpreters or real-time captioning.
- Develop policies and training to make sure that the communication aids are being used effectively in the field, and that effective alternatives are used if any technical problems arise.
GDCS will also provide deaf interpreters for deaf and hard of hearing individuals who have such a need identified in their communication plan. Deaf interpreters are sign language interpreters who are deaf and serve as interpreting specialists for deaf individuals who cannot be effectively accommodated by typical sign language interpreters.
“Going from prison to parole was really hard. The parole system has many complicated rules I'm supposed to follow, but they didn't bring in any interpreters so I could understand what they were telling me. I need a team of hearing and deaf interpreters to fully understand something as complex as parole rules,” said plaintiff Brandon Cobb. “They expect me to follow rules they didn't explain to me, and I had to sign forms that I couldn't understand. I found out later those forms were waiving many of my rights. I wound up getting put back in prison because of all this. I'm glad this settlement will help other deaf or hard of hearing people get better communication and not have the same problems I did.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Georgia, the National Association of the Deaf, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP represent a class of deaf and hard of hearing individuals under GDCS supervision in the case, Cobb v. Georgia Department of Community Supervision.
“No one in Georgia should have to face the risk of unknowingly violating terms of supervision and losing their freedom because they struggle to communicate with their parole or probation officer or to understand complicated supervision conditions,” said Brian Dimmick, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program. “This settlement sets a robust standard for communication access that protects the rights of Deaf and hard of hearing people. It should serve as a model for reform of supervision systems nationwide.”
In our complaint, we detailed how the department’s failure to provide accommodations that facilitate effective communication has often led to deaf and hard of hearing class members’ incorrect understanding of the conditions and requirements of their probation and parole, with potentially disastrous consequences.
“This settlement is a tremendous win for our clients and others on supervision who faced the danger of incarceration and were limited in their ability to secure employment, maintain their health, and fulfill their basic needs,” said West Resendes, staff attorney with the ACLU's Disability Rights Program. “Supervision officers often did not communicate with their deaf and hard of hearing supervisees in an accessible manner or make supervision documents accessible to them, putting deaf and hard of hearing people at risk of violating supervision terms and conditions that they are not even aware of.”
This agreement includes a four-year monitoring period in which plaintiffs’ counsel will receive documents from GDCS and ensure that GDCS is complying with the terms of the agreement.
Additional comments can be attributed as noted:
“This Settlement is a significant step forward for deaf and hard of hearing individuals on probation and parole in Georgia who have often experienced systemic communication failures that have profound impact on their lives,” said Stephanna Szotkowski, a senior associate at Arnold & Porter. “We are hopeful that the policies and procedures for supervision outlined in the Settlement will help ensure GDCS and individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing are able to communicate effectively going forward.”
Brittany Shrader, a senior attorney at the National Association for the Deaf, added: “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. We are hopeful that this settlement agreement will be a major step toward breaking that cycle and allowing deaf and hard of hearing people an equal opportunity to transition into and remain in the community.”
ASL and plain-language versions of the settlement agreement are available here: /cobb-v-georgia-department-of-community-supervision/settlement-agreement
This statement is available here: /press-releases/settlement-ensures-communication-access-for-deaf-people-on-parole-and-probation-in-georgia
An ASL version of this statement is available here:
--
About the ACLU
For more than 100 years, the ACLU has worked in courts, legislatures, and communities to protect the constitutional rights of all people. With a nationwide network of offices and millions of members and supporters, the ACLU takes on the toughest civil liberties fights in pursuit of liberty and justice for all.
About Arnold & Porter
Arnold & Porter is a law firm with a long history of fighting for equal access to justice through its pro bono efforts. In recent years, Arnold & Porter has represented deaf clients seeking access to legally required accommodations in a variety of contexts including federal prison, homeless shelters, and White House press briefings. Arnold & Porter combines sophisticated regulatory, litigation, and transactional capabilities to resolve clients’ most complex issues. With over 1,000 lawyers practicing in 15 offices worldwide, we offer deep industry experience and an integrated approach that spans more than 40 practice areas. Through multidisciplinary collaboration and focused industry experience, we provide innovative and effective solutions to mitigate risks, address challenges, and achieve successful outcomes.
About the NAD
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD) is the nation’s premier civil rights organization of, by, and for Deaf, DeafBlind, DeafDisabled, Hard of Hearing, and Late-Deafened people in the United States. The NAD represents the estimated 48 million Americans of these communities, and is based in Silver Spring, Maryland.
Related Documents
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