## Facts

- William Pierce, a profoundly deaf person who communicates in American Sign Language (ASL), served a 51-day jail sentence at the District of Columbia’s Correctional Treatment Facility in 2012.
- Jail staff knew Pierce was deaf but did not assess his accommodation needs at intake or during custody.
- Staff instead assumed lip-reading and written notes would be sufficient and largely ignored or denied Pierce’s repeated requests for an ASL interpreter.
- Pierce alleged he was unable to communicate effectively with correctional staff, medical providers, counselors, teachers, and other inmates, leaving him isolated and unable to participate meaningfully in medical care, counseling, and classes.
- Pierce alleged he was placed in solitary confinement in retaliation for requesting interpreter services.
- Pierce sued the District under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, along with related claims including retaliation.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment; Pierce sought partial summary judgment on the ADA/Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims, and the District sought summary judgment on all claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the District violated ADA Title II and § 504 by failing to provide reasonable accommodations, including interpreter services, thereby denying Pierce meaningful access to jail services, programs, and activities.
2. Whether correctional officials have an affirmative duty to assess and provide accommodations for inmates with known disabilities without requiring a specific, formal request.
3. Whether the District retaliated against Pierce for requesting accommodations, including by placing him in solitary confinement.

## Decision

- The court granted Pierce’s motion for partial summary judgment on his ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate/discrimination claims.
- The court denied the District’s cross-motion for summary judgment on those discrimination claims.
- The court held that correctional officials have an affirmative duty to assess the accommodation needs of inmates with known disabilities and to provide necessary aids and services for effective communication.
- The court concluded that reliance on lip-reading and ad hoc note-writing did not provide Pierce meaningful access to programs and services, given his communication limitations and the contexts involved (medical care, classes, counseling, and official interactions).
- The court did not resolve all retaliation and other non-core claims on summary judgment; certain components turned on disputed facts and proceeded further.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply to correctional institutions and their programs, services, and activities.
- A public entity denies “meaningful access” when a disability-related communication barrier prevents a qualified individual from participating in or benefiting from services on terms comparable to others.
- Where a disability is known and affects communication, officials must proactively evaluate and provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services; they may not rely on untested assumptions or require the inmate to articulate requests in a particular manner.
- “Effective communication” requires aids and services that work in practice for the individual and the setting; minimal or intermittent communication methods may be insufficient.
- Retaliation claims under disability statutes generally require protected activity, adverse action, and a causal connection; factual disputes on causation can preclude summary judgment.

## Conclusion

The court held the District liable under ADA Title II and § 504 for failing to assess and provide effective communication accommodations to a known deaf inmate, granting Pierce summary judgment on the core discrimination claims while leaving certain retaliation-related issues for further proceedings due to factual disputes.


Pierce v. District of Columbia, 128 F. Supp. 3d 250 (D.D.C. 2015)