Case: Martos v. Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

On April 28, 2016, Disability Rights Florida brought this lawsuit against the Miami-Dade Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (MDCR) on behalf of two deaf persons (Plaintiffs A and B) who had been denied disability accommodations by MDCR. Plaintiffs alleged that despite knowing of plaintiffs’ disabilities and despite judicial rulings ordering MDCR to provide plaintiffs with American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters and other accommodations, MDCR consistently failed to do so during their arrests, detentions, and court hearings. The suit is in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §701 et seq.).

Both plaintiffs alleged that they were not provided with ASL interpreters during arrests. This was particularly detrimental because English, even in its written form, was a second language to plaintiffs. Thus, They could not effectively explain or understand complicated legal situations without an ASL interpreter or some other form of specialized communication aid. Plaintiff A alleged that on February 8, 2016, officers in an unmarked car drove to his home and arrested him without an ASL interpreter or, indeed, any communication whatsoever. Plaintiff B alleged that when he was arrested on October 13, 2015, he was not provided an ASL interpreter during the arrest or during the recitation of his Miranda rights and that he was then held at a police station for several hours with no ASL interpreter or other means of communication.

Both plaintiffs also alleged that they were not given an ASL interpreter or adequate communication aids during pre-trial legal proceedings. Plaintiff A alleged that on July 9, 2012, when he was given an ankle bracelet and sentenced to house arrest as a condition for his pre-trial release, he was not given an ASL interpreter to explain the rules and regulations relating to his ankle bracelet. On July 19, 2012, his ankle bracelet registered an alert, and he was arrested again for violating the conditions of his house arrest. Plaintiff A also alleged that he signed a waiver of presence agreement for pre-trial sounding and conferences without having an ASL interpreter or communication aid that would have enabled him to understand what signing that waiver meant. Plaintiff B, in turn, alleged that on October 14, 2015, and again on February 4, 2016, for a separate arrest, he wasn’t provided with an ASL interpreter during his bond hearings. Because of that, he was forced to rely on his mother, who had only basic knowledge of sign language, for interpretation, which made presenting his legal case more difficult.

Plaintiff A further alleged that he was not given an ASL interpreter or adequate communication aids while incarcerated and during his probation. He alleged that MDCR's failure to provide him with an ASL interpreter or communication aids while he was in prison meant that he was unable to understand or participate in prison orientations, medical appointments, mental health appointments, disciplinary hearings, classification reviews, religious services, and educational programs. Moreover, MDCR's failure to provide either of those during his probation hearing meant that he had to rely on a court attorney as an interpreter to explain complicated legal matters to his own attorney, which made it impossible to speak to his attorney in private.

The plaintiffs sought: (1) a declaration that MDCR violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (2) a permanent injunction requiring MDCR to end any practices, policies, and/or procedures that serve to deny plaintiffs equal access to MDCR's services; (3) enforcement and equitable relief to ensure that MDCR continues to provide equal access to its services in the future; and (4) costs and attorneys’ fees. The parties reached a settlement outside of court, and moved jointly for dismissal with prejudice contingent upon the court's enforcement of the settlement agreement; following this motion, Judge Jose E. Martinez dismissed the case with prejudice and denied all pending motions as moot on October 24, 2016.

The settlement agreement between the parties emphasized the shared interest of all parties in promoting equal access to services and programs for persons with hearing impairments, outlining specific measures to ensure effective communication, including the provision of auxiliary aids and services, the designation of ADA coordinators, and the establishment of grievance procedures to handle related complaints.

The agreement mandated comprehensive training for MDCR personnel on effective communication with deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals, ensuring that auxiliary aids and services, such as qualified interpreters and video remote interpreting (VRI) services, are available when necessary. It also covered the use of VRI technology, the establishment of procedures for the timely provision of interpreter services, and the creation of guidelines for using pre-recorded videos in ASL for inmate orientation and other non-interactive communications.

Additionally, the agreement outlined specific conditions under which interpreters must be provided, such as during intake and classification hearings, disciplinary hearings, religious services, and medical consultations, to ensure inmates have equal access to programs and services. It also included provisions for emergency situations, handcuffing policies to accommodate communication needs, housing assignments to prevent isolation due to deafness, and the display of signs informing inmates of available auxiliary aids and services.

Finally, the settlement included financial terms for attorney's fees (awarded $30,000.00). It also established a framework for ongoing jurisdiction and enforcement of the agreement's terms, highlighting the commitment of Miami-Dade County to comply with ADA requirements and improve accessibility for deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates within its correctional system.

This case is now closed.