## Facts

- Deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners filed a certified class action against a state corrections department and officials, seeking only declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged failures to provide hearing-related accommodations.
- The corrections department received federal funds, making it subject to Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- Plaintiffs challenged systemwide practices affecting: disability identification and placement, communication access in daily and high-consequence interactions, telecommunications, access to religious services, and accessible housing features.
- The department primarily provided teletypewriters (TTYs) for telephone access; plaintiffs presented evidence that TTY use was largely obsolete outside prison and that video-based communication was necessary for comparable access for deaf signers.
- Plaintiffs presented evidence that qualified interpreters and other auxiliary aids were often not provided for high-consequence interactions, including medical care and other proceedings affecting rights and safety.
- Plaintiffs also presented evidence of barriers to participation in religious services because interpreters were not provided.
- Plaintiffs alleged housing barriers, including lack of accessible elements needed for safe and appropriate housing (e.g., visual alerts and communication-related features).
- The department argued it provided meaningful access through TTYs, raised security/monitoring concerns about videophones, asserted acceptable outcomes showed adequacy of services, and contended it had reduced duties for voluntary or volunteer-led activities.
- During litigation, the department pointed to remedial steps and policy changes and argued the claims were moot.

## Issues

1. Whether the corrections department was entitled to summary judgment on claims that its identification and placement practices for deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners violated Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether “effective communication” required communication that is as effective as that provided to hearing prisoners, and whether TTY-only telecommunications satisfied that obligation.
3. Whether the department was required to provide qualified interpreters and appropriate auxiliary aids for high-consequence interactions, including medical care.
4. Whether the department was required to provide interpreters for voluntary religious services under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act and related religious-exercise protections.
5. Whether the department was entitled to summary judgment on claims that it failed to provide accessible housing elements necessary for safe and appropriate housing.
6. Whether post-filing remedial efforts mooted the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims.

## Decision

- The district court overruled the department’s objections and adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in full.
- Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part.
- Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was denied.
- The court held the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners that is “as effective as” communication for hearing prisoners.
- The court concluded TTY-only telecommunications did not satisfy the department’s obligations where the record showed it did not provide comparably effective access.
- The court found the department failed to provide effective communication in high-consequence settings, including medical appointments, due to inadequate interpreter/auxiliary-aid practices.
- The court held interpreters were required for prison religious services notwithstanding their voluntary nature or the involvement of volunteers.
- The court found disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment for defendants on accessible-housing claims.
- The court rejected mootness based on post-litigation changes, finding ongoing disputes and applying voluntary-cessation principles.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require public entities to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services when necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.
- Effective communication is assessed from the standpoint of the person with the disability and must be as effective as communication provided to others in comparable circumstances.
- Equal access focuses on access to the service, program, or activity itself; acceptable end results do not, by themselves, establish effective communication.
- Where the record shows a provided aid (such as TTY-only access) does not offer comparably effective communication, the public entity may be required to provide different or updated auxiliary aids, subject to applicable defenses.
- High-consequence interactions (including medical care and other proceedings with serious consequences) require communication accommodations sufficient to prevent material misunderstanding and to permit comparable participation.
- Prison religious services offered within the institution qualify as covered services, programs, or activities; disability-access duties are not avoided because participation is voluntary or because volunteers help deliver the service.
- Post-filing remedial measures generally do not moot claims absent a showing, under voluntary-cessation principles, that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur.

## Conclusion

The court adopted a recommendation denying summary judgment to the corrections department and granting partial summary judgment to the inmate class, ruling that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act require communication for deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners that is as effective as that available to hearing prisoners, which the record showed was not met by TTY-only access or inconsistent interpreter provision in high-consequence settings, and that ongoing disputes and voluntary cessation principles defeated mootness.


McBride v. Mich. Dep't of Corr., 294 F. Supp. 3d 695 (E.D. Mich. 2018)