PIERCE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
1:13-cv-00134
| D.D.C. | Sep 11, 2015Background
- Plaintiff William Pierce, profoundly deaf and ASL-dependent, was jailed at the District of Columbia’s Correctional Treatment Facility for 51 days in 2012; DOC staff and contractors knew he was deaf.
- No meaningful assessment was performed at intake to determine what auxiliary aids or accommodations Pierce needed to communicate.
- Pierce says he repeatedly requested a qualified ASL interpreter for medical intake/appointments, classes, grievance meetings, and visitation; DOC relied on lip‑reading, written notes, a TTY, and ad hoc signers.
- As a result Pierce alleges denial of meaningful access to prison services (ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act §504 claims) and that he was placed in protective/segregation status in retaliation for his accommodation requests (retaliation claim).
- Court grants Pierce summary judgment on discrimination claims (Claims I & II) because DOC’s failure to evaluate accommodation needs at intake amounted to intentional discrimination/deliberate indifference; compensatory damages remain to be determined.
- Court denies summary judgment to DOC on retaliation claim (Claim III), finding genuine disputes of material fact about whether placement in protective custody/SMU was retaliatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC violated Title II and §504 by failing to provide meaningful communication access | Pierce: DOC knew he was deaf but performed no intake assessment and failed to provide qualified ASL interpretation, denying meaningful access | DOC: It provided adequate alternatives (written notes, lip‑reading, TTY) and only needed to accommodate when requested | Held for Pierce: Failure to assess an obviously disabled inmate at intake is intentional discrimination/deliberate indifference; summary judgment for Pierce on Claims I & II |
| Whether an inmate must request accommodation before DOC’s duty is triggered | Pierce: No request should be required where disability and needs are obvious; DOC must affirmatively assess | DOC: Liability requires a requested, necessary, and feasible accommodation; no duty absent request | Held: Court rejects DOC’s passive approach—when disability is obvious DOC must assess and provide appropriate aids; request requirement is only a notice function |
| Whether record shows Pierce requested and needed an ASL interpreter | Pierce: Multiple contemporaneous notes, staff testimony, and forms show repeated requests; expert evidence shows he needs ASL | DOC: Argues requests were limited (mainly for one class) and that Pierce could communicate via writing/lip‑reading | Held: Even under DOC’s standard, no reasonable jury could find Pierce did not request or need an interpreter; DOC’s factual position is unsupported |
| Whether placement in protective custody/SMU was retaliatory | Pierce: Temporal proximity and circumstances suggest placement and continued segregation were responses to his accommodation requests/grievances | DOC: Placement was for safety (assault) and administrative reasons; policy dictated procedures and review timing | Held: Genuine factual dispute exists; summary judgment denied to DOC on retaliation claim (trial required) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (prisoners retain certain constitutional/civil rights relevant to disability claims)
- Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (prisoners may bring claims under Title II)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (Congress intended to address benign neglect; affirmative obligations under disability statutes)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard and burden of production)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (genuine dispute and materiality standards for summary judgment)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference standard for intentional discrimination under ADA/§504)
- Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 1999) (a requested accommodation can put corrections officials on notice for similar needs; request scope need not be hyper‑narrow)
- Bartlett v. N.Y. State Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 156 F.3d 321 (2d Cir. 1998) (discusses intent standard; courts apply deliberate indifference in many ADA/§504 contexts)