UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

_______________________________ 

MARY ANN MCBRIDE, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) Civil Action No. 2:15–cv–11222 

 v. ) 

 ) Hon. Sean F. Cox 

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT ) Mag. David R. Grand 

OF CORRECTIONS, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

______________________________ ) 

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 

 Plaintiffs assert that the following material facts are not in dispute in this 

case and thus mandate summary judgment: 

PARTIES 

1. Plaintiffs Mary McBride and Ralph Williams are deaf or hard of 

hearing prisoners who are in the custody of the Michigan Department 

of Corrections (“MDOC”). See, e.g., Ex. A, at 4−6 (Plaintiff 

McBride’s Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First Set of 

Interrogatories, Responses 1–2); Ex. B, at 3−6 (Plaintiff Williams’ 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 1 of 23 Pg ID 3272
2

Amended Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First Set of 

Interrogatories, Response 2).1

2. Defendant MDOC is a Michigan state agency that receives federal 

funds for a variety of programs. Ex. D, at 10:25−11:1, 13:15–14:9, 

17:17–18:6 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Talcott)). 

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF 

DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING PRISONERS 

3. Before this lawsuit was filed in March 2015, MDOC had no statewide 

policy for identifying and classifying deaf and hard of hearing 

prisoners. Ex. E, at 27:25–28:3, 37:6–14 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. 

(Harbaugh)); Ex. F, at 69:7–70:4 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Solomon)); 

Ex. G, at 14:1–15:4 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Kerstein)). 

4. Before this lawsuit was filed, MDOC had maintained no 

comprehensive list identifying the deaf and hard of hearing prisoners 

in its custody. Ex. F, at 41:12−42:14; 54:20−55:12, 60:11−15, 

77:21−78:1 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Solomon)); Ex. G, at 86:10–25 

(MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Kerstein)). 

 

1

 Plaintiff Wittman has been released from prison and is currently on parole. He 

was in MDOC custody prior to release. See, e.g., Ex. C, at 4−5 (Plaintiff 

Wittman’s Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories, 

Response 1). 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 2 of 23 Pg ID 3273
3

5. Before this lawsuit was filed, MDOC had taken no systematic steps to 

transfer deaf and hard of hearing prisoners from facilities not 

designated to house them to facilities that are so designated. Ex. H, at 

82:9−16, 86:2−12 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Gilbert)); Ex. G, at 15:5–9 

(MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Kerstein)). 

6. MDOC created a document which established MDOC guidelines for 

identifying deaf and hard of hearing prisoners and classifying their 

hearing loss, effective in April 2016. This document is titled 

“Medical Service Advisory Committee – Guidelines,” and has the 

subject “Guidelines for Hearing Impaired Accommodations and 

Classification.” Ex. I (Guidelines for Hearing Impaired 

Accommodations and Classification). 

7. MDOC’s Guidelines for Hearing Impaired Accommodations and 

Classification state that “one hearing aid will be issued for prisoners 

with deficit in both ears of 26 decibels or greater, if recommended by 

audiologist.” Ex. I (Guidelines for Hearing Impaired 

Accommodations and Classification). 

8. MDOC maintains a health care services grid that identifies the health 

care services available at each MDOC facility. Ex. J, Michigan 

Department of Corrections - Bureau of Health Care Services, Onsite 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 3 of 23 Pg ID 3274
4

Health Care Services Grid. The grid indicates which MDOC facility 

provides the health care service identified in each row. Id. 

9. In the health care services grid, MDOC identified six facilities as 

offering services for “Vision/Hearing Impaired”: SRF, DRF, JCF, 

SMT, WCC, and WHV. Id.; Ex. K, at 16:22–17:3, 30:22–31:24 

(MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

10. MDOC houses prisoners with “severe and profound” hearing loss at 

facilities not identified on the MDOC health care grid as facilities 

designated for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. Ex. L (List of Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing Prisoners Attached as Exhibit 5 to Defendants’ 

Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification); 

Ex. H, at 35:25–36:7 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Gilbert)); Ex. K, at 

60:3–8 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

11. MDOC provided a list of 200 deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in its 

custody on March 10, 2017 that identifies 84 deaf and hard of hearing 

prisoners housed at facilities not identified on the MDOC health care 

grid as facilities designated for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. 

The same list indicates that 32 of the 82 deaf and hard of hearing 

prisoners that MDOC has classified as “hearing impaired with deficit” 

are housed at non-designated facilities. Ex. L (List of Deaf and Hard 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 4 of 23 Pg ID 3275
5

of Hearing Prisoners Attached as Exhibit 5 to Defendants’ Response 

in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification). 

12. MDOC has established no standards or guidelines for what types of 

accommodations are necessary for an MDOC facility to be considered 

capable of housing deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. Ex. K, at 

34:9–15 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

13. Paul Slagter is an employee of the MDOC. He was designated by 

MDOC as its 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge about numerous issues 

related to deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, including (1) MDOC’s 

policies, procedures, and practices related to (a) communications 

devices and/or services for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, and (b) 

access by deaf and hard of hearing prisoners to medical, educational, 

mental health, work, and religious programs or services, parole 

hearings, disciplinary proceedings and any other administrative 

hearings; (2) actions taken by MDOC in response to accommodation 

requests by deaf or hard of hearing prisoners; (3) MDOC’s 

consideration of video relay services; and (4) cancellation of the 

contract with Linguistica International (“Linguistica”) for American 

Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter services. Ex. K, at 8:13–9:7 

(MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))); Ex. M, at 5:14–23 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 5 of 23 Pg ID 3276
6

(MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (October 13, 2016))); Ex. N, at 7–8 

(Plaintiffs’ Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6)); Ex. O, at 

7-8 (Plaintiffs’ Notice of Supplemental Deposition of MDOC 

Pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6)). 

14. Paul Slagter testified in his capacity as a 30(b)(6) representative of 

MDOC that (1) “[t]here is not a departmental policy directive” for 

accommodating deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, and (2) such a 

policy directive is “the only way we’re going to be consistent in 

applying different practices throughout the department.” Ex. K, at 

68:9–12, 20–24 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES AND AUXILIARY AIDS 

15. Video-based communication is now the standard mode of remote 

communication for deaf and hard of hearing individuals who 

communicate through sign language. Ex. P, at 10–12 (Ray Expert 

Report); Ex. Q, at 46–48 (Cokely Expert Report); Ex. R, at 

MCBRIDE 1ST RTP 001991 (Email from Millicent Warren to 

Edward Mize). 

16. Video-based communication allows deaf and hard of hearing 

individuals to communicate with hearing individuals through the 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 6 of 23 Pg ID 3277
7

federal government-sponsored video relay service (“VRS”). Ex. P, at 

11–12 (Ray Expert Report). 

17. Through VRS, the deaf individual uses ASL via video with an 

interpreter, and the interpreter then interprets orally to the hearing 

individual on the call. Ex. P, at 11–12 (Ray Expert Report); Ex. S, at 

MCBRIDE 236034 (Memo from Paul Slagter to Kenneth McKee re: 

Assessment of Video Relay Service (VRS) for the Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing). 

18. Video-based communication also allows deaf and hard of hearing 

individuals to communicate directly with other deaf and hard of 

hearing individuals using ASL. Ex. P, at 11–12 (Ray Expert Report); 

Ex. S, at MCBRIDE 236034-35 (Memo from Paul Slagter to Kenneth 

McKee re: Assessment of Video Relay Service (VRS) for the Deaf 

and Hard of Hearing). 

19. Video-based communication may be monitored by prison staff for 

security purposes. Ex. P, at 12–15 (Ray Expert Report); Ex. S, at 

MCBRIDE 236035 (Memo from Paul Slagter to Kenneth McKee re: 

Assessment of Video Relay Service (VRS) for the Deaf and Hard of 

Hearing). 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 7 of 23 Pg ID 3278
8

20. Video-based communication via VRS can be made available at 

MDOC facilities at no cost. Ex. K, at 71:20–72:3 (MDOC 30(b)(6) 

Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))); Ex. S, at MCBRIDE 236034 (Memo 

from Paul Slagter to Kenneth McKee re: Assessment of Video Relay 

Service (VRS) for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing); Ex. P, at 11–12 

(Ray Expert Report). 

21. MDOC has not made videophones available to deaf and hard of 

hearing prisoners at any of the MDOC facilities. Ex. M, at 12:22–

13:1 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (October 13, 2016 ))). 

22. MDOC makes teletypewriters (“TTY”) available to deaf and hard of 

hearing prisoners at certain facilities. Ex. T, at 19−21 (Defendants’ 

Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Response 6); Ex. U 

(List of MDOC TTYs). 

23. Fifty-five deaf and hard of hearing prisoners identified on MDOC’s 

list of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in its custody are housed at 

facilities that do not have TTYs. Twenty-one deaf and hard of 

hearing prisoners identified as “hearing impaired with deficit” on 

MDOC’s list of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in its custody are 

housed at facilities that do not have TTYs. Ex. L (List of Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing Prisoners Attached as Exhibit 5 to Defendants’ 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 8 of 23 Pg ID 3279
9

Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification); 

Ex. U (List of MDOC TTYs); Ex. K, 39:6−40:12 (MDOC 30(b)(6) 

Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

24. TTY is a 60-year old technology that allows a deaf or hard of hearing 

individual to type a message that a deaf or hard of hearing recipient 

may view if, and only if, the recipient also has a TTY. Ex. P, at 7–9 

(Ray Expert Report); Ex. R, at MCBRIDE 1ST RTP 001989, 001991 

(Emails between Paul Slagter, Millicent Warren, Daphne Johnson, 

and others). 

25. Many deaf and hard of hearing individuals do not have TTYs. Ex. R, 

at MCBRIDE 1ST RTP 001989, 001991 (Emails between Paul 

Slagter, Millicent Warren, Daphne Johnson, and others); Ex. P, at 7 

(Ray Expert Report); Ex. Q, at 4–5, 45–46 (Cokely Expert Report). 

26. Because TTYs require typing and reading, they require proficiency in 

written English. Ex. P, at 7–8 (Ray Expert Report); Ex. Q, at 46-47 

(Cokely Expert Report). 

27. Many deaf and hard of hearing individuals lack proficiency in written 

English. Ex. P, at 5 (Ray Expert Report), Ex. Q, at 13–16, 37–38 

(Cokely Expert Report); see, e.g., Ex. V, at MCBRIDE 015762−64 

(Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records). 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 9 of 23 Pg ID 3280
10

28. Many deaf and hard of hearing individuals use ASL. Ex. P, at 5 (Ray 

Expert Report); Ex. Q, at 10-11, 13–16 (Cokely Expert Report). 

29. ASL has its own structure, syntax, and grammar. Ex. P, at 5 (Ray 

Expert Report); Ex. Q, at 10–12 (Cokely Expert Report). 

30. Deaf and hard of hearing prisoners have requested videophones. Ex. 

W (Wittman Grievance Document); Ex. X (McBride Grievance 

WHV-2013-03-1391-03F). 

31. Paul Slagter notified another MDOC official in an email that “we are 

hearing locally from the prisoners . . . that [TTY] is outdated and the 

family members and the community no longer have the machines. It 

would be comparable to sending someone a fax to their homes versus 

an email to communicate.” Ex. R (Email from Paul Slagter to Daphne 

Johnson); see also Ex. Y, at 9:13–16 (Slagter Dep.). 

32. Until July 1, 2015, MDOC contracted with a single vendor, 

Linguistica, to provide ASL interpreter services at all MDOC prison 

facilities. Ex. K, at 87:23–88:1, 89:7–10 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. 

(Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

33. Linguistica failed to consistently provide interpreters when they were 

requested by MDOC. Ex. Z, at 64:24–65:8 (Reeves Dep.); Ex. AA, at 

42:18–23 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (McKee)). 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 10 of 23 Pg ID 3281
11

34. MDOC terminated the contract with Linguistica on July 1, 2015. Ex. 

BB (Memorandum from Kenneth T. McKee to Wardens re: Language 

Services). 

35. MDOC has not secured the services of a single, statewide provider of 

interpreter services to replace Linguistica. Ex. K, at 88:8–14, 88:24–

89:2 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

36. MDOC instructed individual facilities to retain their own interpreter 

service providers via purchase order. Ex. BB (Memorandum from 

Kenneth T. McKee to Wardens re: Language Services); Ex. K, at 

102:20–24 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

37. One MDOC facility did not retain a replacement provider of 

interpreter services until eight months after the Linguistica contract 

was canceled. Ex. CC, at 78:9–19 (Campbell Dep.). 

38. MDOC has relied on fellow prisoners to interpret for deaf and hard of 

hearing prisoners, including at medical appointments. E.g., Ex. DD 

(Grievance WHV-11-11-4704-06C); Ex. EE, at MCBRIDE 014420, 

MCBRIDE 014451 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical 

Records); Ex. V, at MCBRIDE 015550-51 (Excerpts from MDOC 

Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. CC, at 52:19–53:6, 78:14–22 

(Campbell Dep.); Ex. FF, at 69:11−16 (Brewer Dep.). 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 11 of 23 Pg ID 3282
12

39. MDOC has relied on lip-reading and “pen and paper” to attempt to 

communicate with deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, including at 

medical appointments. E.g., Ex. CC, 52:19–53:6 (Campbell Dep.); 

Ex. EE, at MCBRIDE 021247 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner 

Medical Records); Ex. V, at MCBRIDE 015111, MCBRIDE 015167; 

MCBRIDE 015350, MCBRIDE 015395−96, MCBRIDE 015762−64 

(Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. EE, at 

MCBRIDE 014179−80 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical 

Records); Ex. HH, at MCBRIDE 021791−92 (Excerpts from MDOC 

Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. II, at MCBRIDE 012773 (Excerpts 

from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. JJ, MCBRIDE 

051586−87 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. 

KK (Grievance JCF-13090-1609-12Z1). 

40. Skilled lip readers can recognize only approximately 10-30% of 

words. Ex. Q, at 16–19 (Cokely Expert Report); Ex. P, at 5 (Ray 

Expert Report). 

41. A July 20, 2015 memorandum from MDOC’s Deputy Director for the 

Correctional Facilities Administration, Kenneth McKee, to MDOC 

wardens (“McKee Memo”) listed certain situations when foreign 

language and ASL services should be provided. Ex. BB 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 12 of 23 Pg ID 3283
13

(Memorandum from Kenneth T. McKee to Wardens re: Language 

Services). 

42. The McKee Memo does not establish any specific procedures to 

ensure that interpreters are available. Id.

43. MDOC has not taken any steps to monitor or verify whether its 

facilities are complying with the McKee Memo. Ex. AA, at 35:8–18, 

36:4–10 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (McKee)). 

44. Apart from the McKee Memo, MDOC has no other system-wide 

policies or procedures that address the provision of ASL interpreter 

services. Ex. K, at 95:4−7 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 

2016))); Ex. T, at 15−19 (Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set 

of Interrogatories, Response 5); Ex. LL, at 4−5 (Defendants’ First 

Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for 

Production, Response 13). 

45. The McKee Memo does not require that MDOC provide interpreters 

in connection with religious services. Ex. AA, at 61:14–17 (MDOC 

30(b)(6) Dep. (McKee)); Ex. K, at 105:3–19 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. 

(Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

46. MDOC does not provide ASL interpreters at religious services. Ex. 

K, at 105:3–25 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 13 of 23 Pg ID 3284
14

47. MDOC does not try to accommodate requests by prisoners for ASL 

interpreters at religious services. Ex. K, at 105:20–22 (MDOC 

30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

48. Prisoners in MDOC’s custody have repeatedly not had ASL 

interpreters available for medical appointments. E.g., Ex. MM, at 

MCBRIDE 021209 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical 

Records); Ex. GG, at MCBRIDE 021247 (Excerpts from MDOC 

Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. NN, at MCBRIDE 020910 (Excerpts 

from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. OO, at MCBRIDE 

020908 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. PP, at 

MCBRIDE 020871 Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); 

Ex. QQ, at MCBRIDE 020779 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner 

Medical Records); Ex. II, at MCBRIDE 013047, MCBRIDE 013202 

(Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. EE, at 

MCBRIDE 013986, MCBRIDE 014045, MCBRIDE 014179−80 

(Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records; Ex. V, at 

MCBRIDE 015167, MCBRIDE 015882, MCBRIDE 015395−96 

(Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical Records); Ex. RR, at 

MCBRIDE 033986 (Excerpts from MDOC Prisoner Medical 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 14 of 23 Pg ID 3285
15

Records); Ex. JJ, at MCBRIDE 051586−87 (Excerpts from MDOC 

Prisoner Medical Records). 

49. Video remote interpreting (“VRI”) involves remote ASL interpreters 

accessible by video. Ex. P, at 23−24 (Ray Expert Report). 

50. VRI can be especially beneficial in emergency situations. Id.; see 

also Ex. Q, at 51−52 (Cokely Expert Report). 

51. MDOC previously offered access to VRI at the Women’s Huron 

Valley Correctional Facility (“WHV”) and the G. Robert Cotton 

Correctional Facility (“JCF”) as a “beta test,” but MDOC has 

discontinued this program. Ex. K, at 91:10-93:9, 94:3−7 (MDOC 

30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

NOTIFICATION OF PRISON WARNINGS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS 

52. MDOC does not ensure at the central level that systems of visual 

notification for announcements and safety alerts, such as fire alarms 

and alarms signaling emergency lockdowns, are accessible to deaf and 

hard of hearing prisoners at every MDOC facility where such 

prisoners are housed. Ex. K, at 110:14–112:9, 123:16–21 (MDOC 

30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))). 

53. Not all MDOC facilities that house deaf or hard of hearing prisoners 

provide in-cell visual alarms. Ex. T, at 21–23 (Defendants’ Response 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 15 of 23 Pg ID 3286
16

to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, Request 7); Ex. K, at 110:14–

25, 112:10−19 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))); Ex. 

P, at 19 (Ray Expert Report); Ex. Q, at 38−39 (Cokely Expert Report). 

54. In-cell visual alarms or bed shakers are necessary in the event of a fire 

or other emergency that occurs while deaf and hard of hearing 

prisoners are sleeping, given their likely inability to hear an aural 

alarm. Ex. P, at 18−20 (Ray Expert Report); Ex. Q, at 38−39 (Cokely 

Expert Report). 

55. MDOC does not ensure that systems of visual notification are made 

available for daily activities such as meal time and count time at all 

facilities that house deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, and does not 

consistently provide such visual notification. Ex. T, at 21–23 

(Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories, 

Request 7); Ex. K, at 111:1–22 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 

11, 2016))); Ex. CC, at 80: 14−23 (Campbell Dep.). 

56. MDOC implemented a Page Alert Broadcast System pilot program at 

one facility involving a one-way communication system that allows 

MDOC employees to send messages to pagers issued to deaf and hard 

of hearing prisoners, and is rolling out this system at four of the other 

facilities designated for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. Ex. SS, ¶ 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 16 of 23 Pg ID 3287
17

5 (Affidavit of Paul Slagter, Attached as Exhibit 10 to Defendants’ 

Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification); 

Ex. TT (WHV Operating Procedure: Assistive Listening Devices and 

Page Alert Broadcast System); Ex. M, at 67:21–68:12 (MDOC 

30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (October 13, 2016))). 

57. The pagers provided to prisoners at the pilot facility, WHV, have not 

worked consistently, resulting in information gaps. Ex. A, at 11−12 

(Plaintiff McBride’s Objections and Responses to Defendants’ First 

Set of Interrogatories, Responses 6−7); Ex. K, at 116:25−117:5, 

119:14−120:1 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Slagter (April 11, 2016))); Ex. 

Z, at 92:18−23 (Reeves Dep.); Ex. Q, at 40 (Cokely Expert Report). 

TREATMENT OF DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING PRISONERS 

58. MDOC has received multiple complaints related to the mistreatment 

of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners by prison employees. E.g., Ex. 

UU (Grievance WHV-2014-06-2356-06E); Ex. VV (Grievance URF1406-1931-17a); Ex. EE, at MCBRIDE 014062 (Excerpts from 

MDOC Prisoner Medical Records). 

59. Plaintiff McBride filed a grievance stating that she was verbally 

“degrad[ed]” and “humiliated” by an officer who mocked Ms. 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 17 of 23 Pg ID 3288
18

McBride’s manner of speaking. Ex. UU, at MCBRIDE 235409−12 

(Grievance WHV–2014–06–2356–06E). 

60. The grievance stated that the officer shouted at Ms. McBride despite 

being informed by other prisoners that Ms. McBride was deaf, and 

could not hear the officer’s instructions. Id. at MCBRIDE 235409–

11, 235413–14. 

61. Ms. McBride’s grievance included supporting statements from eight 

eyewitnesses. Id. at MCBRIDE 235413–23. 

62. One supporting statement from an eyewitness stated that a senior 

officer observed the exchange, but did not intervene. Id. at 

MCBRIDE 235415.

63. MDOC responded to Ms. McBride’s grievance by saying, “[McBride] 

is unaware of what comments and statements [were] being made due 

to there was no interpreter present. There fore (sic) grievance is 

denied due to insufficient evidence.” Id. at MCBRIDE 235424.

TRAINING RELATED TO TREATMENT AND ACCOMMODATION 

OF DEAF AND HEARD OF HEARING PRISONERS 

64. MDOC has no system-wide policies or procedures that address 

training related to the treatment of or accommodations for deaf and 

hard of hearing prisoners. Ex. WW, at 14:25–15:3 (MDOC 30(b)(6) 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 18 of 23 Pg ID 3289
19

Dep. (Czinder (April 13, 2016))); Ex. XX, at 9:16–21 (MDOC 

30(b)(6) Dep. (Czinder (October 12, 2016))); Ex. Z, at 144:20−23, 

149:10–15 (Reeves Dep.); Ex. CC, at 53:7–10 (Campbell Dep.). 

65. At a system-wide level, MDOC does not provide training that 

addresses treatment of or accommodations for deaf or hard of hearing 

prisoners. Ex. WW, at 25:16–25 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Czinder 

(April 13, 2016))); Ex. XX, at 9:16–10:12 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. 

(Czinder (October 12, 2016))). 

66. At a system-wide level, MDOC does not provide training on issues 

related to identification and classification of deaf and hard of hearing 

prisoners. Ex. WW, at 26:23–27:1 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Czinder 

(April 13, 2016))). 

67. At a system-wide level, MDOC does not provide training on the use 

and maintenance of TTYs. Id. at 27:2–7. 

68. At a system-wide level, MDOC does not provide training on access to 

ASL interpreters. Id. at 26:19–22. 

69. At a system-wide level, MDOC does not provide training on visual 

systems of notification for alarms and announcements. Id. at 34:22–

35:3. 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 19 of 23 Pg ID 3290
20

70. At a system-wide level, MDOC does not provide training on the needs 

of deaf and hard of hearing prisoners in emergencies. Id. at 35:4–22. 

71. MDOC does not have any plans to provide training or education 

regarding the treatment of or accommodations for deaf and hard of 

hearing prisoners. Id. at 38:10–13 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. (Czinder 

(April 13, 2016)); Ex. XX, at 10:13–16 (MDOC 30(b)(6) Dep. 

(Czinder (October 12, 2016))). 

PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERTS 

72. Dr. Cokely is a tenured professor of ASL and Modern Languages at 

Northeastern University, and has 48 years of experience with deaf 

individuals. Ex. Q, at 1 (Cokely Expert Report).

73. Mr. Ray, who is deaf, has been employed by the City of Los Angeles 

Department of Disability for the past 23 years to assess, monitor, and 

ensure the city’s compliance with the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and 

other disability laws. Ex. P, at 1–3 (Ray Expert Report). 

74. Dr. Cokely found that MDOC denies meaningful and effective 

communicative access for deaf and hard of hearing prisoners, and 

denies them access to services, programs, and benefits that are 

afforded to other prisoners. Ex. Q, at 3 (Cokely Expert Report).

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 20 of 23 Pg ID 3291
21

75. Mr. Ray found that MDOC fails to provide deaf and hard of hearing 

prisoners with the means to communicate effectively with individuals 

both inside and outside of MDOC, to receive important 

announcements, and to have equal access to prison facilities, 

programs, services, and activities. Ex. P, at 4 (Ray Expert Report). 

76. Both experts conclude that MDOC must, at minimum, provide the 

following accommodations to reasonably accommodate deaf and hard 

of hearing prisoners: (1) access to videophones; (2) consistent access 

to qualified sign language interpreters; (3) in-cell visual alarms and/or 

notification systems at all facilities that house deaf and hard of 

hearing prisoners; and (4) training to ensure MDOC staff understand 

how to interact appropriately with deaf and hard of hearing prisoners. 

Ex. Q, at 3–6 (Cokely Expert Report); Ex. P, at 4–5, 26 (Ray Expert 

Report). 

77. Dr. Cokely further concludes that a review of all MDOC policies and 

procedures, with appropriate modifications where warranted, is 

necessary to ensure that deaf and hard of hearing prisoners are not 

systematically disadvantaged relative to prisoners who are not deaf or 

hard of hearing. Ex. Q, at 54 (Cokely Expert Report). 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 21 of 23 Pg ID 3292
22

Dated: March 17, 2017 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Andrew D. Lazerow 

Andrew D. Lazerow 

Stephen C. Bartenstein 

Philip J. Levitz 

Covington & Burling LLP 

One CityCenter 

850 Tenth Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20001 

(202) 662-6000 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 22 of 23 Pg ID 3293
23

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on March 17, 2017, I caused a true and correct copy of 

the foregoing Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute to be served on all 

counsel of record via ECF. 

/s/ Andrew D. Lazerow 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG Doc # 78 Filed 03/17/17 Pg 23 of 23 Pg ID 3294