Pierce v. District of Columbia
128 F. Supp. 3d 250
| D.D.C. | 2015Background
- William Pierce, a profoundly deaf ASL user, was incarcerated at the D.C. Correctional Treatment Facility for 51 days in 2012; DOC staff knew he was deaf but provided no qualified ASL interpreter during his confinement.
- DOC staff performed no intake assessment to determine what auxiliary aids Pierce needed, relying instead on lip-reading and written notes.
- Pierce alleges denial of meaningful access to medical care, rehabilitation classes, telecommunications, notifications, and visitation; he also alleges retaliatory placement in protective/segregation units after repeatedly requesting an interpreter.
- Pierce sued the District under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (discrimination and retaliation) and moved for summary judgment on the discrimination claims.
- The Court granted summary judgment to Pierce on discrimination (Claims I & II), holding DOC’s failure to assess and accommodate an obviously disabled inmate violated Title II and Section 504 and constituted intentional discrimination (deliberate indifference).
- The Court denied summary judgment to the District on the retaliation claim (Claim III), finding genuine factual disputes about whether placement in protective custody/SMU was retaliatory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to assess accommodations at intake | DOC must affirmatively evaluate known-disabled inmates and provide necessary auxiliary aids; DOC did nothing for Pierce. | DOC may rely on inmate requests; it is not required to perform an ex ante assessment for every known disability. | Court: Public entities (especially prisons) have an affirmative duty to assess and ensure meaningful access; DOC violated Title II and §504 by failing to assess. |
| Whether an express request is required to trigger duty | Pierce repeatedly requested an ASL interpreter for many interactions; request requirement is only notice function. | DOC contends accommodation obligation arises only when inmate requests and proves need. | Court: When disability is obvious, no specific request is required; even under DOC's test, record shows Pierce requested and needed an interpreter. |
| Intentional discrimination / damages standard | DOC’s willful failure to evaluate and provide necessary aids was deliberate indifference, supporting compensatory damages. | DOC disputes intent and severity, argues it provided reasonable alternatives (notes, lip-reading, TTY) and lacked notice for many specific requests. | Court: Deliberate indifference standard applies; DOC’s conduct met it and Pierce is entitled to compensatory damages on Claims I & II. |
| Retaliation for requesting accommodation | Placement in protective custody and transfer to SMU followed Pierce’s repeated requests and grievances—could be retaliatory. | DOC says placement was for safety/administrative reasons (assault report, policy, bed management). | Court: Genuine disputes of material fact exist about motive and causation; summary judgment for DOC on retaliation denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (prisoners retain certain federal rights under laws like the ADA)
- Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (Title II applies to state prisoners)
- Cleveland v. Policy Management Sys. Corp., 526 U.S. 795 (1999) (elements for discrimination claims)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standards)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment burdens)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (Congress enacted accommodations to cure benign neglect; affirmative obligations)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference standard for intentional discrimination under ADA/§504)