On August 16, 2016, probationers and parolees who are deaf or have hearing impairments and who are under the control and supervision of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections ("LDPSC"), brought this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs sued the LDPSC and its Secretary under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that the defendants failed to provide the auxiliary aids and services the plaintiffs needed. They alleged that the defendants, by denying them access to auxiliary aids, denied the plaintiffs an equal opportunity to successfully complete their probation and parole and to effectively participate in post-release rehabilitative programs that could (and for at least one plaintiff did) result in a finding that they had violated their probation or parole.

Represented by attorneys from the Advocacy Center, the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and Proskauer Rose, the plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorneys fees, court costs, expert costs, and litigation expenses. They also sought class certification.

The background of the case was that Louisiana had entered a 2008 Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice, which established procedures to provide auxiliary aids and services to deaf or hard-of-hearing prisoners under the control and supervision of the LDPSC. However, the resolution did not address probationers and parolees, like the plaintiffs in this matter. This is problematic because while on probation and or parole, individuals must comply with certain terms and conditions imposed on them, or be subject to punishment, including an extension of their probation or parole, or incarceration. The plaintiffs alleged here that they were unable to comply with all the terms and conditions of their probation and or parole, or to participate meaningfully in the defendants' programs because the defendants have not ensured effective communication with the plaintiffs by providing the requisite auxiliary aids and services.

On July 21, 2017, the parties stipulated to an agreement that any resulting final judgment of the court would apply to "affected individuals" identifiable as of the date of the judgment. The parties stated the agreement was meant to replace litigating class certification, and they acknowledge that those considered to be "affected individuals" could change over the course of the litigation.

On April 4, 2018, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Oral argument on the motion was set for November 15, 2018. This case is ongoing.

Saeeda Joseph-Charles - 12/02/2016
Virginia Weeks - 03/15/2018
- 05/25/2018


compress summary