On May 04, 2011, deaf and hard of hearing prisoners filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the officials at the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Represented by a group of public and private lawyers, the plaintiffs alleged that, while in IDOC custody, they were denied the assistance they needed to effectively communicate and participate in IDOC programs and services, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs sought certification of a class consisting of all prisoners who were deaf or hard of hearing, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.

For nearly the first two years, the parties were involved in settlement talks. However, in April of 2013 the settlement status hearings came to an end and discovery commenced. On October 10, 2014, the parties began settlement talks once more.

The parties were unable to come to a settlement agreement and recommenced discovery as of April 13, 2015. On October 8, 2015, Judge Marvin E. Aspen released an order granting the plaintiffs' class action certification. He also denied in part and granted in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment, but only dismissed the plaintiffs' claim of cruel and unusual punishment as it pertained to "communicative isolation." The rest of the plaintiffs' claims stood as the case proceeded.

Additionally, in June of 2015 the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel supplemental discovery as to the death of a named plaintiff, who they claimed died of a burst appendix because he was unable to communicate with corrections officers. Though the defendants resisted this discovery, they were ordered to produce it by an order from the Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim on December 18, 2015.

In 2016, the case moved towards trial. On August 2, 2016, Judge Aspen denied the plaintiffs' six motions in limine seeking to preclude multiple defense exhibits and witnesses. Judge Aspen also denied the defendants' two motions in limine seeking to bar plaintiffs' deposition testimony and certain exhibits and witnesses. He reopened discovery through October 10, 2016, to allow for inquiry into current prison conditions and for Plaintiffs to depose any newly disclosed defense witnesses.

In September of 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel responses to new discovery requests, which was granted on November 17, 2016. After several additional months of discovery, the parties agreed to resume settlement discussions. The first one was held before Magistrate Judge Kim on April 5, 2017, and it was followed by ten subsequent conferences over the course of the next year. On April 30, 2018, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement.

Under the terms of the settlement, IDOC agreed to:
(1) adopt a policy and procedure for identifying deaf and hard of hearing inmates through hearing screening and audiological evaluations;
(2) create and maintain a centralized database of deaf and hard of hearing inmates;
(3) issue deaf and hard of hearing inmate identification cards;
(4) perform auxiliary aids and services assessments for deaf and hard of hearing inmates;
(5) provide preliminary accommodations prior to auxiliary aids and services assessments;
(6) maintain auxiliary aids and services assessments and implement individualized inmate communication plans;
(7) conduct IDOC staff training on matters regarding deaf and hard of hearing inmates;
(8) provide deaf and hard of hearing accommodations at inmate orientation;
(9) make certain communication devices/technologies available;
(10) make television accessible for deaf and hard of hearing inmates;
(11) implement a tactile notification system;
(12) ensure equal access to prison employment;
(13) remove hand restraints for deaf and hard of hearing inmates when they are communicating through ASL;
(14) ensure that inmates are not transferred solely because of their deaf or hard of hearing status and consider requests of deaf or hard of hearing individuals to be housed together; and
(15) create and disseminate materials memorializing deaf and hard of hearing inmates' rights.

The settlement agreement stipulated that the court and class counsel would monitor compliance with the settlement agreement. The parties agreed that IDOC would pay class counsel $1,500,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The court retained jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the settlement agreement for not less than two years following the effective date.

The court required that IDOC provide notice to the class members by May 26, 2018 and set a fairness hearing for July 26, 2018. Following the class members' objections, the plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the class settlement agreement and in opposition to those objections. Following the fairness hearing on July 26, 2018, Judge Aspen granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of the class settlement, finding that the settlement was fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the class.

On August 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint status report outlining the specific dates by when IDOC must complete certain steps under the class settlement.

[Jane's update starts here]

On June 8, 2020, Magistrate Judge Kim entered a memorandum order and opinion regarding a motion from the plaintiffs to enforce the settlement's audiological evaluation requirement. The plaintiffs alleged that the IDOC was using Licensed Hearing Instrument Dispensers (LHIDs) to conduct these audiological evaluations, rather than licensed audiologists. LHIDs are trained in fitting and servicing hearing instruments, while audiologists are much more comprehensively trained in identifying, measuring, monitoring, and testing hearing and other audiologic disorders. The plaintiffs further allege that the IDOC is not completing these evaluations in a reasonable time period. The IDOC admitted that it violated the settlement by retaining LHIDs to conduct audiological evaluations for one year following the settlement's approval.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement, and ruled that the IDOCs noncompliance necessitated sanctions. The court ordered the IDOC to pay the plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court also extended its jurisdiction to supervise and enforce the settlement for an additional year.

The case is ongoing with periodic reporting as of October 4, 2020.

Xin Chen - 06/22/2011
Jessica Kincaid - 02/27/2015
Kat Brausch - 04/13/2016
Eva Richardson - 10/14/2018
Jane Fisher - 10/04/2020


compress summary