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. ) 

______________________________ ) 

EXHIBIT BB 

Expert Report of Ray Lorenzo Ray (Oct. 28, 2016)

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1313 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

 ) 

MARY ANN MCBRIDE; )

BRIAN STANLEY WITTMAN; and )

RALPH WILLIAMS; on ) 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, )

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) Case No. 2:15-cv-11222

 ) 

 vs. ) Hon. Sean F. Cox

 ) Mag. David R. Grand

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

 ) 

EXPERT REPORT OF RICHARD LORENZO RAY 

October 28, 2016 

My opinion as stated in this report is subject to change based on additional information 

obtained in discovery or other developments in this case, or any future development of 

telecommunication technologies.

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1314 Filed 02/10/17 Page 2 of 32
i 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 

II. QUALIFICATIONS, PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, AND COMPENSATION.......................1 

A. Qualifications .......................................................................................................................1 

B. Previous Testimony .............................................................................................................3 

C. Compensation ......................................................................................................................4 

III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED ...............................................................................................4 

IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS ..................................................................................................4 

V. SUMMARY INFORMATION ON DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING INDIVIDUALS ..5 

VI. OPINIONS ..............................................................................................................................6 

A. Access to Communications and Telecommunication Technologies ...................................6 

a. Voice Communications ..................................................................................................6 

b. Teletypewriter for the Deaf (“TTY”) .............................................................................7 

c. Analog-to-Digital Telephone Network Transition .........................................................9 

d. Traditional and Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services ............................9 

e. Video-Based Services ..................................................................................................10 

(a) Videophone ............................................................................................................11 

(b) Video Relay Services .............................................................................................11 

f. Implementation of Video-Based Services ...................................................................12 

(a) Monitoring, Recording, and Storing of Calls.........................................................12 

(i) Contract Vendors ................................................................................................13 

(ii) Video Visitation System with Downloadable Videophone App ........................13 

(iii) Computer with ZVRS Z-4 and Z-5 Applications ...............................................14 

(iv) Standalone Videophone Equipped with Video/Audio Line Output ...................14 

(v) TV Equipped with an HDMI Input Jack for Videophone ...................................14 

(vi) Purple Videophone Kiosk ...................................................................................14 

(vii) Enterprise Tablets ...............................................................................................15 

g. Status of Implementing Video-Based Services Within the Government.....................15 

(a) Federal Government ...............................................................................................15 

(b) State Prison Systems ..............................................................................................15 

(c) TRS, VRS, and the Federal Communications Commission ..................................16 

h. Telephone Amplification Devices ...............................................................................17 

i. Captioned Telephone ...................................................................................................18 

B. Access to Notification of Events and Announcements ......................................................18 

a. In-Cell Visual Alarms ..................................................................................................19 

b. Wireless Notification Systems with Shakers ...............................................................20 

c. Visual Paging Systems .................................................................................................20 

d. Closed Captioning Television ......................................................................................21 

C. Access to Education, Religious Services, Healthcare, Rehabilitative Programs, 

Disciplinary Hearings, and Employment Opportunities ....................................................21 

a. Qualified Sign Language Interpreters ..........................................................................22 

b. Video Remote Interpreting Services ............................................................................23 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1315 Filed 02/10/17 Page 3 of 32
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

(continued) 

Page

 ii 

c. Communication Access Real-time Translation (“CART”)..........................................24 

d. Audio Assistive Listening Device System (“ALDS”) .................................................24 

D. Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants .................................................................................24 

E. Staff Training Regarding Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requirements ................................25 

F. Procedures for Requesting ADA Accommodations ..........................................................25 

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................26 

 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1316 Filed 02/10/17 Page 4 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

I have been retained by the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP to provide analysis and 

testify as an independent expert on behalf of the Plaintiffs – Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley 

Wittman, Ralph Williams and potentially other inmates – concerning effective communication 

and equal access for the deaf and hard-of-hearing while incarcerated by the State of Michigan 

Department of Corrections (hereinafter “MDOC”). 

I have been asked to provide my expert opinion on (1) whether MDOC provides 

appropriate accommodations for the deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates in MDOC’s custody, 

including Plaintiffs, (2) the means by which MDOC could provide appropriate accommodations 

for the deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates in its custody, (3) and whether implementation of such 

means is feasible, practical, cost-effective, and secure. 

The opinions I have formed are introduced in Section IV below and addressed in more 

detail in Section VI. In forming my opinions, I considered facts disclosed in interrogatory 

responses, document productions, and depositions in this litigation that relate to the deaf and 

hard-of-hearing inmates in MDOC’s custody and my knowledge and experience regarding 

reasonable accommodations for the deaf and hard-of-hearing to ensure effective communication 

and equal access to programs and services. 

In doing so, I have concluded that MDOC has failed to provide Plaintiffs and all other 

deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates in the custody of MDOC with the means to effectively 

communicate with individuals both inside and outside of MDOC, to have an equal opportunity to 

participate in programs, services, and activities, and to receive announcements, including 

emergency announcements, in MDOC and its facilities. Further, I determined that MDOC could 

have provided such means in a reasonable, cost-effective, and secure manner. 

I expect to be called to provide expert testimony at trial regarding the opinions I formed 

on the issues discussed in this report. This report, including the exhibits and attachments, 

summarizes my opinions as of this time. I reserve the right to supplement this report to address 

any issues raised by Defendants’ experts or resulting from further discovery—including 

depositions, interrogatories, document requests, and requests for admission—relating to any of 

the opinions disclosed herein. Additionally, if any information absent from the record is newly 

disclosed in any expert report(s) from Defendants, I reserve the right to supplement my analysis 

based on such information. 

 

II. QUALIFICATIONS, PREVIOUS TESTIMONY, AND COMPENSATION 

A. Qualifications 

I have been employed by the City of Los Angeles Department on Disability for the past 

23 years to assess, monitor, and ensure the city’s compliance with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 (hereinafter “ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereinafter “the 

Rehabilitation Act”), and other applicable federal, state, and local disability laws. Currently, I 

am the ADA Technology Access Coordinator. Prior to that, I was the Deputy ADA Compliance 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1317 Filed 02/10/17 Page 5 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 2 

Officer and ADA Compliance Officer. In these capacities, I have advised the city, including its 

law enforcement agencies, on accommodations in compliance with applicable disability law; 

provided technological and technical assistance to city departments to improve access to and 

communication with the deaf and hard-of-hearing; and coordinated access to city facilities, 

programs, services and activities for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals. Having held these 

positions, I am knowledgeable about the requirements of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and 

other disability laws, and reasonable accommodations under those laws. Through my 

employment I am also well-versed in various technologies and methods for improving 

communication and access for the deaf and hard-of-hearing. 

As an example of my experience, I advised and oversaw the implementation of a system 

permitting access to 9-1-1 emergency services for individuals with disabilities, among other 

telecommunications systems. Additionally, I am currently assisting in the implementation of a 

new telecommunications system designed to accommodate deaf individuals at the Los Angeles 

Police Department (“LAPD”) Metropolitan Detention Center and at all city police stations’ 

public counters, booking, housing, medical, and health care areas. The system includes (1) 

Video Remote Interpreting (“VRI”) services, (2) public access videophones, and (3) a visual 

notification system. Additional examples of my job responsibilities include: 

• Assisting city departments in obtaining and providing communication accommodations 

and auxiliary services such as telephone access, Teletypewriter for the Deaf (hereinafter 

“TTY”), videophones, text telephones, public TTY-equipped payphones, sign language 

interpreter services, computer aide transcriptions, assistive listening systems, videotext 

display, note-takers, captioning and real-captioning services as well as any other effective 

communication system to allow individuals who are deaf, deaf-blind, hard-of-hearing and 

individuals who have speech disabilities access to city programs and services; 

• Providing training to more than 50,000 city employees for over twenty-four years; 

• Providing technical assistance and in-service training to Detention Officers and Law 

Enforcement Officers at Police Academy as well as providing roll call training at Police 

Headquarters, its twenty-two Community Police Stations, and Detention Centers; 

• Evaluating, analyzing, and providing recommendations to the LAPD on various policy 

issues, including procedures for obtaining sign language interpreters in compliance with 

ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 

• Providing recommendations to the Los Angeles Police Commission’s Professional 

Advisory Committee and its subcommittees, which include, inter alia, the LanguageCulture Task Force and Diversity Training Redesign Committee. 

• Provide recommendations to the Los Angeles Fire Department Community Emergency 

Response Team and the Mayor’s Crisis Response Team regarding the interaction with 

individuals with disabilities as well as individuals who are deaf, deaf-blind, and hard-ofhearing; 

• Providing assistance and support to city, state, and local entities during natural disasters 

and crises through emerging telecommunications technologies including videophone and 

current state-of-the-art systems as well as the latest technologies available for effective 

communications and services to meet the needs of people with disabilities before, during, 

and after emergencies (these entities include, inter alia, the Emergency Management 

Department, the LAPD, and Los Angeles World Airports); 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1318 Filed 02/10/17 Page 6 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 3 

• Conducting research on text messaging system to interface with the 9-1-1 system for all 

levels of government to provide direct access to 9-1-1 emergency services; 

• Researching, updating, and maintaining emerging telecommunication technology for city 

programs and facilities (these programs and facilities include, inter alia, 9-1-1 and 3-1-1 

services, police stations, libraries, and airports); and 

• Developing ADA training programs for ADA Coordinators in all city departments. 

These trainings include instruction on ADA terminology, equipment utilization, and 

ensuring that all coordinators are aware of current law and emerging technologies. 

For additional information on my job responsibilities and past employment experience, 

please see Exhibit A for my complete curriculum vitae. 

In addition to my job responsibilities, I am the current co-chair of the National 

Emergency Number Association Accessibility Committee. I am currently a member of the 

Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Task Force on Optimal Public Safety Answering 

Points (“PSAPs”) Architecture and Disability Advisory Committee and the California 

Commission on Disability Access Education and Outreach Committee. In the past, I have served 

as a co-chair of the FCC’s Emergency Access Advisory Committee (“EAAC”) and as president 

of the California Association of the Deaf. I have also served as a member of the National 

Advisory Board of Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center, the University of 

Berkeley and California Public Utilities Commission Equipment Program Advisory Committee, 

Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Programs Administrative Committee, TDD Placement 

Interim Committees, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Service 

Authority for Freeway Emergency Hearing and Speech Impaired Task Force, the County of Los 

Angeles Commission on Human Relations, and the Media Image Coalition. 

I have made several presentations to various federal agencies. For example, I have given 

a presentation on “Five Years of ADA Implementation: 9-1-1 Emergency Access for Deaf and 

Hard of Hearing” to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I have also presented several 

times for the National Emergency Number Association on emerging technologies, emergency 

notification, and emergency communications as they relate to the deaf and hard-of-hearing. 

Among other organizations, I have also presented to the FCC on emergency calling for the deaf 

and hard-of-hearing and to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on policies and 

regulations on accessibility to programs and services before, during, and after disasters. 

For my contributions to my field, I have received various awards and recognitions. A list 

of these honors is provided in my curriculum vitae, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

In 2000, I earned a Disability Rights Masters Certificate from Loyola Law School in Los 

Angeles, California. 

I was born with severe hearing loss and wore hearing aids during childhood and into 

adult life. In 2000, I lost my remaining residual hearing and became completely deaf. Since 

April 2001, I have utilized a Cochlear Implant for environmental sound recognition. 

B. Previous Testimony 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1319 Filed 02/10/17 Page 7 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 4 

I have been engaged as an expert consultant and witness in other cases, as disclosed on 

my curriculum vitae at Exhibit A. In Bryant v. United States Bureau of Prisons, No. 06704-016 

for instance, I testified on general access to prison programs, services, and activities as well as 

effective communications utilizing current technologies for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. I 

also testified for the Berke v. United States Bureau of Prison, No. 1:12-cv-01347-ESH (D.D.C)

case on effective communications for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. In addition, I conducted 

research and provided expert reports in five additional court cases involving state departments of 

rehabilitation and correction regarding telecommunication technology in prison systems for 

inmates who are deaf, deaf-blind, and hard-of-hearing. The five additional cases include: 

Bearden v. Clark County, State of Washington, No. 3:14-cv-05318-BHS (W.D. Wash.); Adams v. 

Kentucky Department of Correction, No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.); William Pierce v. 

District of Columbia Department of Corrections, No. 1:13-cv-00134- JEB (D.D.C); Heyer v. 

U.S. Bureau of Prisons, No. 5:11-CT-3118-D (E.D.N.C.); and Smith v. Idaho Department of 

Correction, No. CV-12-00030-BLW (D. Idaho).

C. Compensation 

I have been retained by Covington & Burling, LLP in this case at the rate of $150.00 per 

hour. My compensation is not dependent on the outcome of this case or the opinions and 

conclusions I offer. 

 

III. MATERIALS CONSIDERED 

I have been provided with, reviewed, and used the materials listed in Exhibit B in 

developing my report. Additionally, I have reviewed and I am relying on the materials cited in 

my report. 

IV. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 

It is my opinion, based on my experience, my understanding of reasonable 

accommodations under relevant laws, and analysis of the factual record and all materials cited in 

my report, that MDOC has failed to provide Plaintiffs, as well as all other deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates in the custody of MDOC, with the means to communicate effectively with 

individuals both inside and outside of MDOC, to receive important announcements, and to have 

equal access to jail facilities, programs, services, and activities. 

It is important to recognize and defer to the preferences of deaf and hard-of-hearing 

individuals to ensure their effective communication. It is my opinion that MDOC has failed to 

do so effectively. 

It is further my opinion that MDOC should have provided the following accommodations 

to ensure effective communication and equal access for Plaintiffs and all deaf and hard-ofhearing individuals in custody: (1) videophone technology; (2) qualified sign language 

interpreters available in person, or remotely via Video Remote Interpreting (“VRI”), and upon 

request; (3) Video Relay Service (“VRS”); (4) Captioned Telephone systems; (5) 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1320 Filed 02/10/17 Page 8 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 5 

Communication Access Real-time Translation (“CART”) services and/or Assistive Listening 

Device Systems (“ALDS”) (6) in-cell visual alarms and/or wireless notification systems; (7) bed 

shakers; (8) visual notification systems; and (9) MDOC staff training concerning deaf and hardof-hearing inmates. 

There were and are no insurmountable technological, cost, or security impediments to 

implementing such accommodations at MDOC and its facilities such as Carson City, Robert G. 

Cotton, Chippewa, Parnall, Saginaw, Women’s Huron Valley (WHV), and Woodland 

Corrections Centers. Indeed, other prison systems and government agencies have already 

implemented similar telecommunication technologies.1

V. SUMMARY INFORMATION ON DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING 

INDIVIDUALS 

Hearing loss affects all levels of society, every age, race, education level, and occupation. 

Some individuals are born deaf and some become deaf later in life. Deafness is caused by a wide 

range of factors, including but not limited to heredity, illness, disease, accident, medication, 

violence, and aging. 2

In most, but not all cases, hearing loss may also cause speech difficulties while deafness 

almost always does. People who are born deaf have never heard speech sounds. As a result, 

they often are unable to speak clearly, and many do not speak at all. There are literacy level 

differences among the deaf community. Further, while some individuals have English literacy 

skills, many individuals do not have a written form of a language by which to communicate. 

Also, individuals usually do not have expertise in reading lips. Even for those who can lip-read, 

numerous factors can inhibit an individual’s ability to rely on lip reading. Only approximately 

25 percent of words can be visually recognized by an expert lip-reader; the rest is left to guess 

work.3

The majority of deaf individuals in the United States utilize American Sign Language 

(ASL) as their primary language.4

 ASL has its own structure, syntax, and grammar. Persons 

who use sign language are very expressive with their hand movements and may also use speech, 

fingerspelling, writing, body language, and facial expressions. While ASL is not a written 

English language, it is a visual manual language with its own unique structure, syntax, and 

grammar. It is based on the movement of the signs, other body movements, and non-manual 

grammatical markers, which are known as “facial grammar.” The setting is established not by 

 

1

 These include, inter alia, the Powhatan Correctional Center in Virginia, Vermont’s state prison system, 

Wisconsin’s state prison system, all federal government agencies, the U.S. Department of Defense, and portions of 

the U.S. military. 

2 Basic Facts About Hearing Loss, Hearing Loss Association of America, http://www.hearingloss.org/content/basicfacts-about-hearing-loss (last visited Oct. 28, 2016); Questions and Answers for Health Care Providers, National 

Association of the Deaf, http://nad.org/issues/health-care/providers/questions-and-answers (last visited Oct. 28, 

2016). 

3 Questions and Answers for Health Care Providers, id. 4 American Sign Language, National Association of the Deaf, http://www.nad.org/issues/american-sign-language 

(last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1321 Filed 02/10/17 Page 9 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 6 

words, but by visual-based perceptions. Accompanying facial expressions and body language 

indicate the intensity of emotion. 

VI. OPINIONS 

 Currently, MDOC fails to provide inmates with the means to communicate effectively 

and gain access to prison programs, services, and activities and does not provide adequate 

accommodations for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. Inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing 

must have the same access to effective communication as do hearing inmates and must have an 

equal opportunity to participate in and access the benefits of MDOC’s services, programs, and 

activities, including the use of its facilities and services. 

A. Access to Communications and Telecommunication Technologies 

Based on my 24 years of experience working with state and local governments, I strongly 

recommend that MDOC evaluate its programs and services for effective communications access 

for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. In my opinion, MDOC must: a) assess, evaluate, analyze, 

and make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures; b) remove barriers to 

access; and c) provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication for all 

inmates who are deaf, deaf-blind, and hard-of-hearing. 

 Auxiliary aids and services that provide effective communication and equal access are 

widely available and easy to implement. Many are already being used in prisons and 

correctional centers across the United States. 

a. Voice Communications 

Telephone communication is one of the most important forms of communication in 

society today. 

In addition, telecommunication technologies help people to connect directly to each other 

even when in distant locations. The increasing methods for establishing communication 

connections instantly are digital, broadband, and Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). Since 

deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals cannot communicate telephonically, alternative modes of 

telecommunication technology have been developed over time. With the rapid evolution of 

technology, the communication choices for persons with disabilities are changing. The 

expansion of services such as captioned telephone services, Internet Protocol Relay Services, 

Speech-to-Speech Relay Services, as well as Video Relay Services and devices including 

personal computers, laptops, mobile phones, and tablets offer more mainstream possibilities. 

Due to advancements in technology, telephone devices have evolved with new services 

and capabilities. The development of digital data communication methods, such as the protocols 

used for the internet, have made it possible to digitize voice and transmit it as real-time data 

across computer networks, giving rise to the field of Internet Protocol (“IP”) telephony that is 

rapidly replacing traditional telephone network infrastructure. Since 2006, many VoIP 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1322 Filed 02/10/17 Page 10 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 7 

companies, such as Vonage Business, Nextiva, RingCentral, and JIVE Communications offer 

services to consumers and businesses. 

Technological changes in the industry and expansion of telecommunications now provide 

people many communication options. Individuals who are deaf and hard-of-hearing, and 

individuals with a speech disability are also following these trends and are rapidly migrating to 

more advanced telecommunications methods, both for peer-to-peer and third party 

telecommunication relay service (“TRS”) communications. Internet-based equipment includes, 

but is not limited to, wireless devices, videophones/videocams, computers, and tablets. 

b. Teletypewriter for the Deaf (“TTY”) 

TTY is a 60-year-old technology that enables remote communications between deaf 

individuals and between deaf and hearing individuals. In a conversation between two deaf 

individuals, both parties type and read responses using the teletypewriter device, and their typed 

conversation is transmitted back and forth across the standard telephone network. In a 

conversation between a deaf individual and a hearing individual, the deaf party uses the TTY 

while the hearing party uses a standard telephone. An operator then dictates the deaf individual’s 

typed messages to the hearing party and types the hearing individual’s spoken messages to the 

deaf party.5

 To utilize a TTY a deaf individual must have access to a teletypewriter device. 

Thus, in order for a deaf individual to communicate with another deaf individual, both 

individuals must have a TTY. 

TTYs offer limited effectiveness compared to sign language translation and the other 

auxiliary aids and services.6 Most fundamentally, a TTY’s capacity to facilitate communication 

is completely dependent on deaf users’ often limited reading and writing skills. In addition, most 

deaf individuals no longer use TTY devices (relying instead on videophones) and, as a result, 

deaf inmates who can only access TTYs are often unable to contact deaf friends and family 

members with the device. According to an FCC report, TTY use has declined by 10% per year. 

Of all operator-assisted calls involving deaf individuals, the FCC estimates that today only 12% 

are TTY calls. The majority (75%) are video-based calls.7

Whereas an average typing rate is 40 words per minute and a professional typist can type 

as many as 80-100 words per minute, in the U.S. most TTYs use a communication code that is 

limited to transmitting text over telephone lines between the rate 308

 to 60 words per minute.9 

Further, TTYs do not have controllable upper and lower case characters. All outgoing text 

appears in lower case, while all incoming text appears in upper case. They also do not offer 

 

5

 TTY is not the only communication device for the deaf that utilizes operators. Video-based services discussed 

later in this report also utilize operators. 

6

 Gunnar Hellström, EAAC TTY Transition, FCC (Sept. 14, 2012), 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-316316A1.pdf. 

7 Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) Report on TTY Transition, FCC EAAC, 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-319386A1.pdf (March 2013) [hereinafter FCC EAAC Report 

on TTY Transition]. 

8 Id. 9

 TRS Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 64.601-64.606, 64.611, & 64.613. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1323 Filed 02/10/17 Page 11 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 8 

special characters such as “@” “&”, “*”, “%”, etc.10 Consequently, a TTY conversation takes 

much longer than a signed conversation and longer than the average, real-time typed 

conversation.11 Due to TTY equipment limitations, it transmits tones at the rate of 45 characters 

per minute. 

Hence, TTYs do not have high-speed transmission capability; additional time is needed 

when using a TTY due to its equipment limitation as well as user limited typing skill. The 

maximum transmission rate is about six characters per second, which is slower than many people 

type;12 therefore, users must also be allowed sufficient time to use the device.

13 

Moreover, although MDOC maintains certain TTYs, MDOC’s Paul Slagter testified that 

some of MDOC’s TTYs are not used and that they have been left on the shelf.14 And when 

TTYs are in operation, at least some deaf inmates are unable to use them, for instance due to 

inability to hear the instructions and difficulty using the debit card menu system.15 According to 

the documents produced in this case related to TTYs, most inmates who are deaf and hard-ofhearing cannot use traditional telephones to communicate with individuals outside of the 

correctional center. Ms. Mary Ann McBride, for example, is unable to communicate with her 

deaf friends and her two brothers as well as relatives outside of her correctional center.16 Ms. 

McBride has never been able to place an outgoing phone call through the use of the device. 

Also, it is very difficult for Mr. Wittman to communicate through a traditional telephone.17 

And Mr. Williams cannot use a traditional telephone to communicate with his family and 

friends due to his deafness.18

Additionally, AT&T Michigan discontinued the traditional TRS service provided to these 

carriers throughout the state of Michigan, causing interruption of service for 6 weeks when 

MDOC discovered 60-some calls were missing. MDOC appeared not to be aware of the 

termination of traditional relay services until long after. Consequently, inmates did not have any 

form of telecommunication system to be able to communicate with their family members or 

lawyers whereas inmates who can hear were able to use telephones from May 26, 2015 until 

relay service was restored on July 14, 2015.19 

The provision of TTYs to Plaintiffs and other deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates does not 

provide them with the means to effectively communicate with deaf, hard-of-hearing, and hearing 

 

10Proposed procedures for the TTY as a text terminal in legacy 9-1-1 PSAPs without IP connection, FCC EAAC 

(June 14, 2013), https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-321704A1.pdf. 11 TTY Overview, Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services, 

http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/gov/departments/mcdhh/programs/hearing-dogs/tty-overview.html (last visited Oct. 28, 

2016). 

12 FCC EAAC Report on TTY Transition, supra. 13 Rights of Deaf and Hard of Hearing Inmates,” National Association of the Deaf, http://nad.org/issues/justice/jailsand-prisons/rights-deaf-inmates (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

14 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition April 11, 2016, 36:4–36:5 & Individual Deposition Oct. 13, 2016, 118:19-

120:4. 

15 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition. April 11, 2016, 48:9-48:24. 16 McBride Complaint 15, ¶ 38. 

17 McBride Complaint 15, ¶ 40. 

18 McBride Complaint 15, ¶ 41. 

19 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition. April 11, 2016, 79:24-85:15. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1324 Filed 02/10/17 Page 12 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 9 

individuals outside the prison. MDOC needs to replace or supplement these TTY devices with 

the video-based services described below to provide Plaintiffs and the deaf and hard-of-hearing 

inmates with remote communications technology comparable to that used by their hearing peers. 

c. Analog-to-Digital Telephone Network Transition 

The analog telephone line is expensive to maintain, relies on switches and other parts that 

may no longer be manufactured, and does not always interface well with the newer technologies 

that still use old copper wires, especially in rural areas. Consequently, it is problematic in many 

VoIP implementations as most voice digitization and compression codecs are optimized for the 

representation of the human voice and the proper timing of the modem signals cannot be 

guaranteed in a connection-less network. 

The incompatibility between analog and VoIP network may have an adverse impact on 

the usage of analog equipment such as TTY; data traveling across a computer network may fail 

to reach its destination during transmission which is known as a packet loss. This means that one 

can expect to exceed the one percent character error rate threshold recommended by the FCC 

when the packet loss rate is only 0.12%, an amount far below what is often regarded as 

acceptable for voice communication. Voice-optimized packet loss concealment algorithms are 

not able to trick a TTY into “hearing” a TTY tone (data bit) that was not received. If any one of 

the audio packets containing a TTY tone is lost, the receiving TTY will be unable to decode and 

display that character properly.20 There appears to be no effort from TTY manufacturing 

companies to update TTYs to accommodate VoIP or digital phone systems. 

For all of the above reasons, MDOC’s provision of limited TTY access to deaf and hardof-hearing inmates fails to provide them with the means to effectively communicate with deaf, 

hard-of-hearing, and hearing individuals outside the correctional center. MDOC needs to replace 

or supplement these TTY devices with the video-based services (described below) to provide 

deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with remote communications technology comparable to that 

used by their hearing peers. 

d. Traditional and Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Services 

Title IV of the ADA amended the landmark Communications Act of 1934 that requires 

all telecommunications companies in the United States to take steps to ensure functionally 

equivalent services for consumers with disabilities, notably individuals who are deaf, deaf-blind, 

hard-of-hearing and individuals with speech disabilities through the provision of traditional relay 

services.21

A third party TRS is a telephone service that allows persons with hearing or speech 

disabilities to place and receive telephone calls. TRS is available in all 50 states, the District of 

 

20 FCC EAAC Report on TTY Transition, supra. 21 Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In Re Speech-to-Speech and Internet Protocol (IP) 

Speech-to-Speech Telecommunications Relay Services & In re Telecommunications Relay Services And Speech-toSpeech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CG Docket Nos. 08-15 & 03-123 (July 19, 

2013), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-13-101A1.doc. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1325 Filed 02/10/17 Page 13 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 10 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories for local and/or long distance calls. TRS 

providers – generally telephone companies – are compensated for the costs of providing TRS 

from either a state or a federal fund. There is no cost to the TRS user. There are several forms 

of TRS, depending on the particular needs of the user and the equipment available. 

The FCC adopted internet-based TRS, which in 2002 began to include other services 

which are made over the internet by consumers who use broadband connections: text-to-voice 

TTY-based TRS, voice carry over, hearing carry over, speech-to-speech relay service, shared onEnglish language relay services, captioned telephone service, IP captioned telephone service, IP 

relay service, and video relay service. TRS providers must also offer the service 24 hours a day, 

seven days a week. 

The FCC has ruled that VRS through a TTY relay service is not permitted.22 Federal 

VRS handles only video-to-voice calls or voice-to-video relay calls. 

On July 1, 2006, the FCC required VRS providers to answer 80 percent of calls within 

two and a half minutes. On January 1, 2007, the FCC rules changed and VRS providers were 

required to answer 80 percent of all VRS calls within two minutes. 

The FCC has continued to adopt various rules to improve the VRS service. One of the 

recent rulings that the FCC issued requires VRS providers to answer (i.e., provide the equivalent 

of a dial tone) 85 percent of all VRS calls within 30 seconds. The new rulings were commenced 

on July 1, 2014. 

Nevertheless, in some cases, the connection time from the caller to the calling party 

through internet-based relay varies, and can range from 2 to 5 minutes. The connection time 

depends on the availability of a video interpreter (“VI”) or communication assistant (“CA”). 

When a call is placed to VRS, the call may be placed in a queue for the next available VI or CA 

to answer. Once the caller and VI or CA are connected, communication is then established. The 

VI or CA would then place and connect the call to a calling party. There is also a lag time when 

utilizing a VI or CA who facilitates communication between the caller and the call recipient as 

the VI or CA will be slightly behind when relaying to ensure accuracy in dialogue. 

TTY calls placed through TRS take quite a bit longer than direct TTY connections 

because CA has to wait until two or three sentences are read before translating from American 

Sign Language to standard English for accuracy. The entire message is then relayed to the 

calling party.23

e. Video-Based Services 

Deaf individuals are increasingly using video-based communications devices instead of 

TTYs for phone calls. All of these devices and services are preferable to TTYs due to the fact 

that they are not reliant on deaf individuals’ often limited reading and writing skills. 

 

22 Federal Video Relay Service, https://www.fedvrs.us/supports/what_is_vrs (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 23 Telecommunications Recommendations, United States Department of Justice, 

http://www.justice.gov/crt/508/report/telecom.htm (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1326 Filed 02/10/17 Page 14 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 11 

(a) Videophone 

Videophones are telephones with a high-definition video display, capable of 

simultaneous two-way interactive video and audio for communication between people in realtime using separate internal high-speed bandwidth Internet telecommunication services. 

Since 2000, videophones have become widely available at a reasonable cost.24 In 

addition, they are particularly useful to individuals who are deaf, deaf-blind, hard-of-hearing or 

have speech disabilities, who can use them with their natural sign language, which has its own 

structure, syntax, and grammar. They can use fingerspelling, body language, and facial 

expressions to indicate the intensity of emotion. 

Any deaf individual can apply for a free videophone through a vendor of his or her 

choice.25 Deaf users also do not incur per-minute usage costs, which are instead paid for by the 

FCC’s Telecommunications Relay Services Fund. For those not eligible to receive a free 

videophone, the device ranges in price but typically can be purchased for between $75 and $150. 

Likewise, the high-speed internet service which powers videophones can generally be procured 

at the modest cost of approximately $30.00-$50.00 per month per household. 

Video communication is popular for immediate communication and the volume of calls 

has increased to 150 million per year.26

Videophones are provided in various major brands and models listed in Exhibit C. 

These include: ZVRS Z-150, Z-170, Z-340, Z4, or Z5; Sorensen nTouch; Cisco IP Video Phone 

E20; or a desktop computer with built-in webcam or a laptop with a built-in webcam using 

desktop videoconferencing. 

The Defendants should assess suitability of video conferencing equipment such as 

desktop PCs, laptops, videophones, or other webcam solutions provided by major manufacturers 

of video conferencing devices. Once the Defendants select an appropriate videophone provider, 

they need only ensure that MDOC and its facilities have a high-speed internet connection into 

which the videophone device can connect. Additionally, several options exist to monitor in real 

time and record videophone use, as described in Section VI.A.e.(a). 

(b) Video Relay Services 

VRS uses high-speed internet to enable remote communications between deaf and 

hearing individuals. The deaf individual signs to an intermediary sign language interpreter via 

video monitor. The interpreter, in turn, relays the deaf person’s message to the hearing 

individual in spoken English and vice versa. In a VRS conversation, the hearing party speaks 

 

24 In some cases, Video Relay Service Providers offer videophone equipment at no cost to customers. 

25Application Form for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Individuals for all VRS providers including Sorenson 

Communications, ZVRS, Purple, Convo, CAAG, and Global are available online. 26 See FCC EAAC Report on TTY Transition, supra. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1327 Filed 02/10/17 Page 15 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 12 

into a standard telephone as he or she normally would. VRS has been widely available in the 

U.S. since at least the mid-2000s. 

VRS is free of charge to all users, deaf or hearing. VRS is not intended for parties in the 

same physical location (e.g., same room), and VRS interpreters are trained to refuse calls if they 

conclude the parties are in the same physical location. 

Video Relay Service (VRS) 

VRS is the only form of remote communication that allows both deaf and hearing 

individuals to communicate using their preferred method of communication. This is the closest 

form of communication to a communication between two deaf persons signing over videophone 

or two hearing persons having a voice-to-voice conversation over the phone. Consequently, 

Plaintiffs, as well as other similarly-situated deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, require VRS to be 

able to contact their hearing associates outside of the correctional center in a manner comparable 

to hearing inmates contacting hearing associates over a standard telephone. The Defendants’ 

failure to provide Plaintiffs, and other deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates who rely on signing for 

communication with VRS access denied them effective communication and equal access. 

f. Implementation of Video-Based Services 

Video technologies are increasingly becoming popular and it is expected that they will 

establish a common mode of communication for everyone. As a result, it is also likely that 

individuals will expect to call their families and friends using video technologies. 

Based on my experience, there is no significant technological barrier preventing or that 

would have prevented MDOC’s implementation of the above-discussed video-based 

accommodations. Moreover, any security concerns with these services are either unfounded or 

easily addressed. 

Like other languages, video calls permitted for individuals who communicate using ASL 

can be translated and conveyed to a monitor through third party language translation services. 

Like non-English speaking people, if an existing monitor is not able to determine the language, 

he or she may transfer the call to contracted language services for assistance. 

(a) Monitoring, Recording, and Storing of Calls 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1328 Filed 02/10/17 Page 16 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 13 

Based on my experiences, many prisons, correctional centers, and jails may monitor, 

interrupt, and record hearing inmates’ phone calls. MDOC does so in some cases. In the event 

the prison, correctional center, and jail monitors, interrupts, records, and stores calls, this policy 

may also apply to inmates utilizing telecommunication technology. 

TRS and VRS providers do not keep records of the contents of any conversation to 

ensure that confidentiality of VRS and TRS users is maintained. However, just as there are 

companies that record hearing inmates for all of their calls for safety and security, there are also 

companies that can record VRS and point-to-point calls. 

There are various methods for monitoring and recording video-based communications 

between a deaf inmate and the calling party to ensure functional equivalency. 

Below is a description of possible methods including but not limited to monitoring, 

interrupting and recording deaf inmates’ video-based communications to provide effective 

communication and equal access to deaf inmates without imposing security risks.27

(i) Contract Vendors 

The Michigan Department of Corrections' vendor for prisoner telephone service is Public 

Communications Services (PCS), Inc. On April 10, 2013, the DailyDial® prepaid phone service 

was upgraded to the GTL Advance-Pay® prepaid telephone service. 

MDOC may utilize its existing contract with GTL to provide both VRS and point-topoint videophone calls and also can monitor, record, interrupt, or intervene in these video calls.28 

There are several vendors who provide this service and functionality, and those vendors are 

identified in Exhibit D. Six vendors in particular, J-Pay, Securus Technologies, 

RenovoSoftware, Inc., Televideo and Cisco Systems, Inc., are to be considered and 

recommended. Their products and applications allow prison, correctional center, or jail 

management to monitor, record, and interrupt video sessions that are in process. These vendors 

also help to ensure that attorney-client communications are private with no monitoring, 

recording, or barge-in capabilities. 

Alternatively, prisons and correctional centers can enlist IT vendors to assist in 

monitoring video-based communications. For example, the Virginia Department of Corrections 

uses IT contractor Northrop Grumman for this purpose. 

(ii) Video Visitation System with Downloadable 

Videophone App 

 

27 These methods allow for the recording, storing, monitoring, and interrupting of video-based calls. In order to 

understand the content of these calls, however, prisons will have to hire someone fluent in ASL on an ongoing or asneeded basis. 

28 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition. April 11, 2016, 77:10-78:15. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1329 Filed 02/10/17 Page 17 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 14 

Some vendors are now providing video visitation systems equipped with a downloadable 

videophone app for computers, tablets, and smartphones to allow inmates to communicate 

effectively with family and friends using FCC-administered videophone technology. 

(iii) Computer with ZVRS Z-4 and Z-5 Applications 

The ZVRS Z-4 and Z-5 computer applications for PCs and Macs29 also monitor, record, 

and interrupt incoming and outgoing video communications. The user simply clicks on the red 

“RECORD A CALL” button to the right of the self-view screen. The button turns blue to 

indicate recording has commenced. Notably, all callers will be notified that the call is being 

recorded. 

To access all recorded calls using this application, click on the “VIDEO RECORDER” 

icon. In the Video Recorder window, there are four columns for each recording: Name, Date, 

Time, and Duration. Copies of selected recording can be saved as MOV (*.mov) files and stored 

or exported for later review. The recorded call may be paused or played back as desired. See 

Exhibit E. 

Attached as Exhibit F is a 60-second video clip demonstrating how a video call using 

any videophone application or equipment can be monitored using the Z-5 application with a Mac 

or PC. Exhibits G.1 and Exhibit G.2 further explain how prison staff can use Z-5 to monitor 

calls. 

(iv) Standalone Videophone Equipped with Video/Audio 

Line Output 

A standalone videophone can connect to a DVD recorder using a standard audio/visual 

cord to capture and store calls for later review. The DVD recorder cannot interrupt calls, 

however. DVD-ROM discs can only be read and not edited or erased. Rewritable DVDs (DVDRW, DVD+RW, and DVD-RAM) can be recorded and erased multiple times. 

(v) TV Equipped with an HDMI Input Jack for 

Videophone 

Sorenson nTouch videophones are made up of three separate hardware devices: (1) the 

Main Unit, (2) the Remote Camera Unit (“RCU”), and (3) the hand-held remote control. The 

Main Unit connects to the RCU with a USB cable and to a TV set using either a composite video 

cable or an HDMI cable. A DVD-R can be connected to the main unit using a standard AV cord 

to record calls for later review. The DVD-R cannot interrupt calls, however. 

(vi) Purple Videophone Kiosk 

Purple Videophone Kiosk may be housed at the prison’s IT infrastructure using laptops, 

servers, cloud, contracted vendor or other systems for recording and storing all data. It provides 

 

29 Notably, a prison can also remove all access to web browsers on computers being used for video-based 

communications to prevent unauthorized use by inmates. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1330 Filed 02/10/17 Page 18 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 15 

recorded data of point-to-point and both voice and video communication through VRS through 

its contractor Televideo Network, LLC. See Exhibit H. 

(vii) Enterprise Tablets 

Enterprise tablets with motion sensors are increasingly being sold to prisons and 

correctional centers for use by inmates to ensure as well as maintain prison’s security and protect 

its network and may utilize Virtual Private Network (VPN) as a new tactic to ease inmates’ 

return to society where technology is taking on an increasing role. The enterprise tablet has a 

built-in sensor to prevent inmates from moving the tablet in attempt to show the calling party any 

area inside the prison or correctional center. If the tablet moves, the video will shut down and the 

screen turns black. 

Purple Videophone using Android, an enterprise device with Purple App interface with Jpay system would allow inmates to have access to videophone technology to communicate with 

family members while the video communication is being monitored, recorded and stored. 

g. Status of Implementing Video-Based Services Within the 

Government 

(a) Federal Government 

The United States General Services Administration (“GSA”) contracted Sprint Relay to 

provide the federal relay interpreting services, which offers instantaneous video interpreting for 

one-on-one meetings and appointments with managers, supervisors, peers, co-workers, and 

customers.30 Federal employees who are deaf or hard-of-hearing received and utilized 

videophone technologies which are funded through Computer/Electronic Accommodations 

program (“CAP”), a federal program to help the federal government make their work and 

military home environments accessible to people with disabilities. For example, the Department 

of Defense, Edwards Air Force Base employees received and utilized videophone equipment to 

use video interpreting services in spring of 2012 as part of a reasonable accommodation under 

Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.31

(b) State Prison Systems 

In fall 2010, Plaintiffs Gary Minnis, Larry More, David Richardson, Ronald Roman, 

Delonte Tinsley, and Wolfjunge Wolfsburger and Virginia Powhatan Correctional Center 

(“Powhatan”) entered into a settlement agreement which provides Powhatan’s deaf inmates with 

access to videophones, VRS, and VRI.32 See Exhibit I. As part of the settlement, the Virginia 

Department of Corrections also implemented new policies and procedures regarding the use of 

these devices and TTY. These policies provide for the monitoring, recording, and storing of 

 

30 Federal Video Relay Service, supra. 31 Darcy Painter, DOD’s CAP videophones brings deaf employees closer to Team Edwards, Edwards Air Force 

Base, Oct. 15, 2012, http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/394263/dods-cap-videophonesbrings-deaf-employees-closer-to-team-edwards. 

32 Dena Potter, Virginia Deaf inmates settle lawsuit, are provided videophones Settlement also provides interpreters, 

Detroit Legal News, Nov. 19, 2010, http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/795635. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1331 Filed 02/10/17 Page 19 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 16 

video- and text-based communications with exceptions for attorney-client communications. 

Since this settlement agreement was reached, the Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, Oregon, Vermont, 

Virginia, and Wisconsin state prison systems have granted deaf inmates videophone access as 

well.33

On April 5, 2011, the Texas Court of Appeals for the Third District issued a preliminary 

injunction ordering the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”) to provide 

telecommunications access to deaf prisoners via the Texas relay service. The court also ordered 

TDCJ to “investigate ways to implement the use of videophone technology to accommodate 

inmates with disabilities.”34

In addition, the Department of Justice has entered settlement agreements between the 

United States of America and these entities, requiring implementation of videophones in jails and 

detention facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act: Erie County, The Erie County 

Holding Center and the Erie County Correctional Facility35; Pennington County, South Dakota36; 

Merced County, California37; and Nueces County, Texas.38

Prison systems have also implemented video-based communication systems voluntarily. 

For instance, during the month of May 2013, the Hall County Sheriff’s Office Jail Division in 

Georgia installed and began using Sorenson nTouch videophone technology to accommodate the 

communication needs of inmates who are deaf and hard-of-hearing. This also enables inmates at 

the Hall County Detention Center to take advantage of the latest technology when 

communicating with family and friends on their visitation list.39

(c) TRS, VRS, and the Federal Communications Commission 

 

33 Letter from Talila A. Lewis, Founder & President, Helping Educate to Advance the Rights of the Deaf, to 

Marlene H. Dortch, Commission Secretary, FCC (Mar. 25, 2013), available at 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7022134808.pdf; Landmark Settlements Reached in Maryland and Kentucky for Deaf 

Prisoners, Washington Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs, http://www.washlaw.org/news-amedia/423-deaf-inmates-md-ky-settlement (June 8, 2015). 

34 Texas Court Orders TDCJ to Provide Hearing Impaired Telecommunications, Prison Legal News, September 15, 

2012, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2012/sep/15/texas-court-orders-tdcj-to-provide-hearing-impairedtelecommunications/. 

35 Settlement Agreement between the United States of America & Erie County, New York Regarding the Erie 

County Holding Center & the Erie County Correctional Facility Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, DJ No. 

204-53-125 (Dec. 17, 2014), available at http://www.ada.gov/erie_county/erie_county_sa.html. 36 Settlement Agreement between the United States of America & Pennington County, South Dakota Under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act ¶ 18, DJ No. 204-69-49 (June 1, 2015), available at 

http://www.ada.gov/pennington_co/pennington_sa.html. 

37 Settlement Agreement between the United States of America & Merced County, California Under the Americans 

with Disabilities Act ¶ 22, DJ No. 204-11E-383 (June 23, 2015), available at 

http://www.ada.gov/merced_co/merced_sa.html. 

38 Settlement Agreement between the United States of America & Nueces County, Texas Under the Americans with 

Disabilities Act ¶ 22, DJ No. 204-74-348 (Jan. 30, 2015), available at 

http://www.ada.gov/nueces_co_tx_pca/nueces_co_tx_sa.html. 

39 Hall County Jail Utilizes New Technology for Hearing Impaired Inmates, Hall County, Georgia, 

http://www.hallcounty.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/175 (May 8, 2013). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1332 Filed 02/10/17 Page 20 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 17 

The FCC has taken several steps to ensure that VRS will continue as a vibrant service. 

Title IV of the ADA requires the FCC to ensure that: (1) Telecommunications Relay Services 

(TRS) are available to the greatest extent possible to persons with hearing or speech 

disabilities;40 and (2) TRS offers persons with hearing and speech disabilities access to a 

telephone system that is “functionally equivalent” to voice telephone service.41 In March 2000, 

the Commission recognized several new forms of TRS, including VRS.42

On November 5, 2015, the FCC released Rules and Order regarding rates for 

telecommunications services utilized by inmates. This order addresses the needs of inmates with 

disabilities and advanced form of communication technologies and TRS.43

The FCC reaffirmed in this order their existing policy of strongly encouraging 

correctional facilities to provide inmates with communication disabilities access to TTYs, as well 

as equipment used for advanced forms of TRS, such as videophones and captioned 

telephones. Access to more advanced forms of TRS, including VRS, IP Relay, CTS, and IP 

CTS, may be necessary to ensure equally effective telephone services for these inmates. The 

FCC recognizes that many facilities have already begun providing access to alternative forms of 

TRS and strongly encourages other facilities to continue this trend. 

h. Telephone Amplification Devices 

Amplifiers are devices that make sounds louder and clearer for individuals who are hardof-hearing who have some residual hearing and use their voice when using telephones to 

communicate with their family and friends. Inmates who have residual hearing may need to 

utilize a telephone with amplification devices to communicate with family and community to 

maintain ties as well as to communicate with an attorney outside of prison. 

Telephones manufactured after January 1, 1989 must be hearing aid compatible. The 

Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988 required that telephones located in workplace common 

areas and credit card operated telephones be compatible with hearing aids.44

Hearing aids operating in telecoil coupling mode avoid unwanted ambient noise by 

turning off the microphone and receiving only electromagnetic signal generated by telecoilcompatible telephones. There are several different ways a telephone can be amplified: a built-in 

volume control in the handset, an in-line amplifier that is attached to the telephone, or a 

telephone handset that has built-in amplification. Public telephones have a button to press or a 

sign explaining how to increase the volume. See Exhibit J. 

 

40 47 U.S.C. § 225(b)(1). 

41 47 U.S.C. § 225(a)(3). 

42 See Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ¶ 21-27, In re Telecommunications Relay 

Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67 (March 6, 2000), available at 

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-56A1.pdf. 

43 Rates for Interstate Inmate Calling Services, 47 CFR § 64, available at 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/12/18/2015-31252/rates-for-interstate-inmate-calling-services. 44 Hearing Aid Compatibility for Wireline and Wireless Telephones, FCC, 

https://www.fcc.gov/guides/hearing-aid-compatibility-wireline-and-wireless-telephones (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1333 Filed 02/10/17 Page 21 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 18 

i. Captioned Telephone 

Many deaf and hard-of-hearing persons who have intelligible speech and can read 

English use captioned telephone services. Plaintiff Williams wears a hearing aid; however, he 

still has difficulty hearing with the hearing aid. It is very difficult for Mr. Williams to 

communicate through a traditional telephone. He must ask the other caller to repeat himself 

frequently. The process is tedious. As a result, he is unable to communicate with family 

members effectively.45 Mr. Williams may benefit from using captioned telephone. 

A captioned telephone is a special telephone that has a built-in screen to display in text 

(captions) everything the other person on the call says. When an outgoing call is placed using a 

captioned telephone, the call is connected automatically to a Communication Assistant (CA) at 

the Captioned Telephone Service Provider Call Center. The CA, a specially trained operator, 

hears the person who is speaking. The CA repeats or re-voices what that person says and speech 

recognition technology automatically transcribes the CA’s voice into text (captions), which is 

displayed on the captioned telephone. 

There are various types of captioned telephones that are available through Ultratec, Inc.46

and CaptionCall47 as listed in Exhibit K. The captioned telephone service is free to the user 

because it is reimbursed by the FCC for providing the service to individuals who are deaf or 

hard-of-hearing that prefer to speak for themselves. The funds for this service are provided by a 

surcharge that all United States residents pay on their monthly phone bills for 

telecommunications relay services. These manufacturers produce various types of captioned 

telephone such as Analog VCO Phone, Analog (one line), Analog two-line CapTel, 

Analog/Internet CaptionCall, Internet WebCapTel with any phone and Internet Mobile CapTel. 

These types of captioned telephones can be connected to a prison telephone network which 

allows calls to be recorded. Further, they can be provided at no or low cost. 

B. Access to Notification of Events and Announcements 

When MDOC relies solely on audible notifications or alerts – whether to notify inmates 

of scheduled activities or meals, important announcements, or emergencies – it denies access and 

protection to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. As a result, deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are 

at greater risk of death or injury due to fire and other emergencies, particularly when they are 

asleep or otherwise isolated from others. Further, the deaf and hard-of-hearing may not be aware 

of when certain activities or programs start to the same extent as hearing inmates and may miss 

their opportunity to participate in and benefit from such. Accordingly, a deaf and hard-ofhearing inmate would be denied equal access to prison programs and activities. 

People who are deaf and hard-of-hearing face unique challenges in an emergency. Their 

ability to detect a fire or escape its effects may be hindered by their hearing loss. As a result, 

these individuals are at a greater risk of death or injury due to fire. They must rely entirely on 

 

45 McBride Complaint 15 ¶ 40. 

46 Ultratec, Inc., http://www.ultratec.com (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 47 CaptionCall Mobile, CaptionCall, https://www.captioncall.com/captioncall (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1334 Filed 02/10/17 Page 22 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 19 

visual clues to understand messages being sent through the utilization of visual alarms. There 

are many types of notification systems that can assist deaf individuals. 

 Certain auxiliary aids and notification systems should be implemented in MDOC and its 

facilities so that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are not denied equal access to notifications and 

announcements and thereby programs and activities. 

a. In-Cell Visual Alarms 

Certain standing and portable visual alarms shine brightly enough to wake up a sleeping 

deaf individual. Portable visual alarms can be easily moved from cell to cell. Moreover, a 

prison can purchase a battery-powered unit or shorten the unit’s power cord to address security 

and inmate safety concerns. 

 A portable visual alarm device with a 177-candela visually flashes at an average rate of 

60 times a minute and has a 90-decible audible signal. This device meets the ADA 

requirements; however, if inmates have low frequency hearing loss, a modified Loudenlow Low 

Frequency smoke detector is needed. Research has shown these visual alarms are significantly 

more effective at waking individuals with mild to moderate hearing loss. The flash rate of 

strobes used in emergency signaling applications is an important factor because if the rate is too 

high, it may trigger epileptic seizures among individuals who are sensitive to rapid bursts of 

light. 

From reviewing the photos of MDOC facilities that MDOC produced in this case and that 

I received, it appears that there is no visual alarm in the cells. Plaintiffs and similarly situated 

deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates require a standing or portable visual alarm bright enough to 

wake them from sleep for their safety and to ensure equal access to prison services. 

Furthermore, Ms. McBride was placed in Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facility’s 

Calhoun B unit, where her request for special accommodation including lights and TTY were not 

provided. 

Based on my review of the photos, visual smoke alarms in MDOC and its Robert G. 

Cotton, Macomb, and Women’s Huron Valley Correctional Facilities are currently placed in the 

common areas. Deaf inmates may not be able to see the strobe light from their cells, especially 

when there is a small window and their doors may be so far that the light may be out of sight. 

Also, the light may not be bright enough to be seen during daylight. 

WHV lacks an effective system of notification lights or signs for notifying Ms. McBride 

and other deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. WHV has a single, red notification light outside the 

officer’s station at the facility’s Gladwin Housing Unit B. This light is sometimes used to 

announce inmate “count time” – officers sometimes turn the light on when count starts and off 

when count is over. Ms. McBride cannot see the signs or the single, red notification light in her 

cell or in the television room. 

WHV has issued pagers to approximately six deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, including 

Ms. McBride, to help the facility notify these inmates of alarms and announcements. WHV 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1335 Filed 02/10/17 Page 23 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 20 

apparently has used the pages sporadically; thus this communication system may not yet be 

effective.48 

In addition, Mr. Wittman could not hear alarms or announcements at DRF when his 

implant was broken in 2012 (for approximately four months) and 2013 (for approximately three 

months). Furthermore, Mr. Wittman removes the implant when he goes to sleep, which makes 

him unable to hear emergency announcements without a visual alarm. 

b. Wireless Notification Systems with Shakers 

Wireless notification systems use sound monitors that can detect sounds such as triggered 

audible alarms, door knocking, and phones ringing. When the device detects these sounds, it 

alerts deaf users with a bright visual flasher and a powerful bed shaker. 

The system consists of a master unit and a bed shaker. The master unit consists of an 

alarm clock with a large display, a flasher with 6 LED lights, and a motion sensor. The face of 

the master unit has large bright icons to note which event has activated the alarm. Wireless 

notification systems are available in the models listed in Exhibit L. 

MDOC should install wireless notification systems in addition to or in lieu of in-cell 

visual alarms in prison facilities since these systems are able to alert deaf inmates who are in 

their cells to both emergency and non-emergency situations. 

c. Visual Paging Systems 

Visual paging systems relay important messages to deaf individuals. These systems use 

digital signage networks composed of CRT monitors, LCD flat screen panels, plasma displays, 

split flap boards, high-definition TVs, or LEDs. They are available in wireless and wired 

formats. Ideally, these devices are connected throughout the correctional center via existing TV 

monitors. 

Examples of Visual Paging System 

San Francisco Airport and Bainbridge Island Ferry 

 

48 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition. April 11, 2016, 117:3-118:10. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1336 Filed 02/10/17 Page 24 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 21 

Plaintiffs require a visual paging system to alert them of audible announcements of all 

kinds. The Defendants do not provide Plaintiffs with access to this service, thus denying them 

effective communication and equal access. Further, deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates that have 

missed activities and programs available to other inmates because they could not hear 

announcements have been discriminated against and denied equal access. Finally, without visual 

and physical emergency notification systems, all deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are at a 

greater risk of injury or harm due to the Defendants’ lack of accommodations. 

MDOC must ensure announcements are functionally equivalent and deploy visual paging 

systems to provide visual information available to inmates when audible announcements are 

broadcasted through the utilization of existing monitors throughout MDOC facilities. The 

existing TV monitors should be able to be switched from HDMI or VGA setting to display 

notices from a computer in the Control Room. MDOC can program and store a number of 

generic alerting messages and notices in the computer and broadcast the appropriate visual 

message. 

d. Closed Captioning Television 

Closed captioning allows persons who are deaf and hard-of-hearing to have access to 

television programming by displaying the audio portion of a television program as text on the 

television screen. All analog and digital television receivers with screens 13 inches or larger sold 

or manufactured in the United States must contain built-in decoder circuitry to display closed 

captioning. The closed captioning decoder receives signals from the broadcaster or program. 

This feature can be turned off and on using a remote control or the menu button on the television. 

Closed captioning should at all times be on all TV monitors in MDOC common areas to 

allow inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing the opportunity to view the program of their 

choice or to participate in the program that is taking place. 

C. Access to Education, Religious Services, Healthcare, Rehabilitative 

Programs, Disciplinary Hearings, and Employment Opportunities 

Because MDOC limits access to or denies the use of sign language interpreting services, 

deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates such as Plaintiffs do not have the same opportunity as hearing 

inmates to participate in and participate in and enjoy the benefits of education, healthcare, 

rehabilitative programs, religious services, disciplinary proceedings, and employment 

opportunities. This is due to the fact that such deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates require sign 

language interpreting services – such as qualified interpreters and VRI – to communicate as 

effectively as hearing inmates in such programs, proceedings, and opportunities. This is a denial 

of effective communication and equal access. 

Policy changes should be implemented within MDOC to permit better access, including 

emergency access, to interpreting services so that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are not 

denied effective communication and equal access in programs, hearings, and employment 

opportunities. Below is some background information on these remedies and how such remedies 

could be implemented practically and safely. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1337 Filed 02/10/17 Page 25 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 22 

 MDOC must strive to make its programs, services, activities, and facilities accessible to 

inmates with disabilities through the provision of auxiliary aids and services. Auxiliary aids and 

services include: qualified interpreters on-site or through video remote interpreting (VRI) 

services; note takers; real-time computer-aided transcription services; written materials; 

exchange of written notes; telephone handset amplifiers; assistive listening devices; assistive 

listening systems; telephones compatible with hearing aids; closed caption decoders; open and 

closed captioning, including real-time captioning; voice, text, and video-based 

telecommunications products and systems, including text telephones (TTYs), videophones, and 

captioned telephones, or equally effective telecommunications devices; videotext displays; 

accessible electronic and information technology; or other effective methods of making aurally 

delivered information available to individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.49

a. Qualified Sign Language Interpreters 

Qualified sign language interpreters provide real-time translations in deaf individuals’ 

primary language (ASL) and have been available for hire for decades. Because interpreter 

quality varies widely, it is important to use interpreters that are certified by the National Registry 

of Interpreters for the Deaf (“RID”).50 Sign language interpreting service should be processed 

through several local contracted Sign Language Interpreting Services Agencies. See Exhibit M. 

Effective July 7, 2014, new requirements take effect for businesses and organizations that 

hire sign language interpreters in Michigan, creating different levels of qualifications for 

specific types of communication. 

Certified and qualified interpreters adhere to a code of professional conduct and are able 

to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially using any necessary specialized vocabulary.51 

The use of non-certified and unqualified interpreters can result in inadequate communication and 

miscommunication. Potential conflicts of interest concerns and privacy concerns also must be 

considered when selecting an interpreter, and interpreters who raise either concern – including 

interpreters that are fellow inmates in a prison setting – should only be used as a last resort. 

Interpreter-assisted communications are the only form of in-person communication that allows 

both the hearing and deaf individuals involved in a conversation to communicate as they would 

normally. Plaintiffs, as well as all other deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates in the custody of 

MDOC, require this service to participate, for instance, in prison classes, religious services, 

medical appointments, intake, orientation, and grievance interviews in a manner comparable to 

their hearing peers. 

 MDOC’s failure to provide these services despite Plaintiffs’ timely requests was a denial 

of effective communication and equal access. Ms. McBride had repeatedly requested sign 

language interpreting services and was not provided them for MDOC’s services, programs, and 

activities. For instance, according to a grievance filed by Ms. McBride, she has requested sign 

 

49 Americans with Disabilities Act Title II Regulations, available at 

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleII_2010/titleII_2010_regulations.htm (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 50 Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc. www.rid.org (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 51 NAD-RID Code of Professional Conduct, Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, http://www.rid.org/ethics/code-ofprofessional-conduct/ (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1338 Filed 02/10/17 Page 26 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 23 

language interpreters for her medical appointments, which has led her appointments to be 

rescheduled more than six times. As another example, Mr. Wittman’s requests for an interpreter 

during medical visits have been repeatedly denied, and he was, therefore, unable to communicate 

effectively with medical professionals. 

MDOC also entered a statewide contractual agreement with Linguistica International 

from August 1, 2014 that was set to expires on July 31, 2017; however, MDOC terminated the 

contract on June 1, 2015 and those services are procured through the facilities themselves.52 

Consequently, each individual facility has to retain their own vendors to provide sign language 

interpreting services and some did not begin doing so until substantially after the cancellation of 

the Linguistica contract, depriving deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners of equal access while 

interpreters were unavailable.

b. Video Remote Interpreting Services 

VRI uses high-speed internet services to allow deaf and hearing individuals in the same 

physical location to communicate without an in-person interpreter. Instead of an in-person 

interpreter, VRI employs an off-site interpreter to provide translation services via video monitor. 

Like VRS, VRI has been widely available in the U.S. since at least the mid-2000s. 

Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) 

This service should be utilized when an interpreter cannot be physically present to 

interpret for individuals who are at the same physical location. It is ideal for unplanned medical 

communications, brief interactions, and emergencies. For this reason, VRI is commonly used in 

locations such as hospitals, doctors’ offices, mental health care settings, police stations, and other 

instances demanding near-immediate access to an interpreter.53 MDOC can contract with a 

vendor such as Purple Communications VRI Services54 or ZVRS Stratus Interpreting Services55

to enable VRI communications. 

VRI is the only form of in-person communication that allows hearing and deaf 

individuals to communicate without an in-person interpreter in their preferred manner. Since an 

 

52 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition, April 11, 2016, 87:23-88:4 and Individual Deposition, October 13, 2016, 

11:20-11:22. 

53 See, e.g., Position Statement: VRI Services in Hospitals National Association of the Deaf, 

http://nad.org/issues/technology/vri/position-statement-hospitals (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 54 VRI, Purple Communications, http://www.purple.us/vri (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 55 Stratus Video, http://www.stratusvideo.com (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1339 Filed 02/10/17 Page 27 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 24 

in-person interpreter cannot always be obtained in a timely manner, Plaintiffs and other similarly 

situated deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates require access to VRI services to be able to 

communicate with hearing individuals during emergencies and other unexpected events in a 

manner comparable to hearing inmates. 

 MDOC previously had a VRI pilot program utilizing iPads at the Women’s Huron Valley 

Correctional Facility, but this pilot program was terminated on July 1, 2015 and this 

accommodation is no longer provided.56 According to Defendant Paul Slagter, “the vendor 

deployed cellular-based iPads as a workaround solution and the iPad would sit in front of the 

prisoner with an ASL interpreter in Utah.” According to Mr. Slagter, this program is not moving 

forward, even though it had worked well for prisoners. MDOC’s failure to provide Plaintiffs 

with access to VRI is therefore denying them effective communication and equal access to prison 

programs. 

Further background and implementation details for video-related services is described in 

Section VI.A.e. 

c. Communication Access Real-time Translation (“CART”) 

CART Services utilize machine stenographers (real-time captioners) who manually enter 

verbal communication via a steno machine into a software program. The program converts the 

steno signals to English instantly, which is then displayed on a personal computer or projection 

screen for a deaf or hard-of-hearing person to read.57 The service is typically used by individuals 

who are hard-of-hearing, late-deafened, and those who lost their hearing after learning speech 

and rely solely on CART and captioning in group settings such as educational institutions, 

lectures, or at group meetings. 

d. Audio Assistive Listening Device System (“ALDS”) 

ALDS enables persons with minimal hearing loss to participate in the proceedings of 

large group meetings and public forums. An audio system is connected to an induction loop that 

amplifies sounds and tones. Sound and tones are then broadcast to a personal hearing aid or 

Cochlear Implant equipped with acoustic coupling or a telecoil inductive switch, which are used 

by individuals who prefer audio enhancement. See Exhibit N. 

D. Hearing Aids and Cochlear Implants 

A hearing aid is an electronic, disposable battery-operated device that captures and makes 

sound louder, which can be helpful for most people with hearing loss. Hearing aids and 

Cochlear Implants are helpful for people with mild to moderate hearing loss; however, there are 

some for whom hearing aids either do not help or help insufficiently. For many people who have 

severe-to-profound sensorineural hearing loss ("nerve deafness") in both ears, even the most 

advanced and powerful aids may not adequately help. 

 

56 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition, April 11, 2016, 91:11-94:6. 57 Communication Access Realtime Translation, National Association of the Deaf, 

http://nad.org/issues/technology/captioning/cart (last visited Oct. 28, 2016). 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1340 Filed 02/10/17 Page 28 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 25 

Cochlear implants are surgically implanted devices that send sound information via 

electrical stimulation directly to the auditory nerve, bypassing the damaged, missing or nonfunctioning sensory receptors (hair cells) located within the inner ear. Though they can create a 

range of sound, they do not restore or create normal hearing. Cochlear implants use both 

disposable and rechargeable batteries. See Exhibit O. 

Disposable batteries typically last several days, depending on the power needs of each 

recipient’s hearing aid device. Generally, in noisy environments the sound processor requires 

more battery power and may drain much faster so that batteries may need to be changed more 

frequently. 

Mr. Williams has, and utilizes, a hearing aid. On one occasion, Mr. Williams was not 

allowed the use of his hearing aid during a misconduct hearing.58 Consequently, as a result of 

this proceeding during which he was unable to hear or communicate, Mr. Williams was forced to 

serve 40 days in solitary confinement, also without being permitted access to his hearing aid. 

Further, MDOC did not provide him batteries for his sound enhancement device. In addition, 

Mr. Wittman utilizes a cochlear implant and MDOC failed to have his cochlear implant repaired 

within a reasonable amount of time. MDOC must provide inmates who utilize hearing aids or 

cochlear implants with access to disposable batteries as well as chargers and accessories for 

recharging batteries. Back-up rechargers and batteries must be available at MDOC for inmates 

who may request them. 

E. Staff Training Regarding Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Requirements

As confirmed in Mr. Craig Czinder’s deposition testimony on behalf of MDOC, MDOC 

does not provide or offer MDOC-wide training on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or 

accommodations for deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners.59 MDOC should implement and offer 

staff training on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the ADA, as 

amended, and what they require in regards to the needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates and 

all other inmates with disabilities in order to appropriately inform staff regarding 

accommodations for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. Once this training is implemented, 

MDOC should adhere to its own policy requiring a training plan for its staff and require 

comprehensive sensitivity training for its staff. The training should include, but not be limited 

to, effective communication and interaction with individuals who are deaf and hard-of-hearing as 

well as emerging telecommunications technology. Please see Exhibit P for a suggested training 

outline. 

F. Procedures for Requesting ADA Accommodations

It is my understanding that there is no written or defined MDOC procedure for inmates to 

seek accommodations under the ADA.60 To address inmates’ attempts to obtain 

 

58 McBride v. MDOC Class Action Complaint 5, ¶ 7. 

59 See, e.g., Craig Czinder 30(b)(6) Deposition April 13, 2016, 26:9-26:22 & October 12, 2016, 9:16-11:4. 60 See, e.g., Slagter 30(b)(6) Deposition. April 11, 2016, 96:22-97:12. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1341 Filed 02/10/17 Page 29 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 26 

accommodations, a simpler procedure specific to the ADA such as “Inmate Reasonable 

Accommodation Request Form” should be provided. 

A procedure for requesting reasonable accommodation could be published in the MDOC 

Handbook, and an ADA Compliance Officer as well as assigned Local Correctional Disability 

Coordinators for Inmates at each facility should be identified to inform inmates of MDOC’s 

commitment to comply with the ADA. An inmate seeking an accommodation could complete 

the Inmate Reasonable Accommodation Request Form. On the form, the inmate could describe 

the specific accommodation needed and the specific action the inmate wants MDOC to take to 

accommodate his or her disability and allow him or her to participate in programs, services, and 

activities. The completed form would need to be fully processed to ensure that the request for 

reasonable accommodation is properly evaluated. This form could be filed separately from the 

inmate’s file to avoid retaliation for the requested accommodation. These changes would permit 

MDOC to respond to the individualized needs of particular deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. 

VII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

MDOC failed to provide Plaintiffs Mary Ann McBride, Brian Stanley Wittman, and 

Ralph Williams, and other deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with the means to communicate 

effectively and access MDOC’s programs, services, activities, and facilities. In particular, the 

Defendants should provide the following accommodations to ensure effective communication 

and equal access for said Plaintiffs and all other deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates in MDOC’s 

custody: (1) videophone technology; (2) qualified sign language interpreters available in person, 

or remotely via VRI, and upon request; (3) VRS; (4) Captioned Telephone systems; (5) CART 

services and/or ALDS (6) in-cell visual alarms and/or wireless notification systems; (7) bed 

shakers; and (8) visual paging systems. 

With today’s expanding technology, individuals have many communication options. 

People who are deaf, deaf-blind, or hard-of-hearing and individuals with a speech disability are 

following these trends and are rapidly migrating to more advanced telecommunications methods, 

for instance, for peer-to-peer communications, video remote interpreting services, and 

videophone conferencing. Internet-based equipment includes, but is not limited to, wireless 

devices, videophones/videocams, computers, and tablets. Due to technological changes in the 

industry and expansion of videophone systems, implementation of technology, programs, and 

services to meet their communication needs, MDOC should be kept abreast to ensure 

communication accessibility. By utilizing current device interfaces with network connections, 

an individual is able to experience video communication that is more functionally equivalent to 

that enjoyed by people who can hear and speak. 

MDOC Bureau of Health Services’ Medical Service Advisory Committee developed and 

issued Guidelines for Hearing Impaired Accommodations and Classification effective April 27, 

2016; however, they fail to provide a clear identification of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates and 

their communication needs. As indicated in the Guidelines, the Medical Practitioner will 

evaluate all prisoners for hearing impairment during intake, as needed, and order special 

accommodations for prisoners with a documented hearing impairment. These Guidelines should 

not be relied on as an exclusive determinant of the type of accommodation needed for inmates. 

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1342 Filed 02/10/17 Page 30 of 32
Expert Report of 

Richard Lorenzo Ray 

 27 

The expressed choice of the individual with the disability, who is in the best position to 

know his or her needs, with the support of a qualified ADA Compliance Officer and assigned 

Local Correctional Disability Coordinators, should be given primary consideration in 

determining which communication aid to provide to ensure equal access to MDOC and its 

facilities, programs, activities, and services for all deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners.61 

 

 

61 Model Policy for Law Enforcement on Communicating with People Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing, 

Department of Justice (Jan. 2006), http://www.ada.gov/lawenfmodpolicy.pdf.

Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1343 Filed 02/10/17 Page 31 of 32
Case 2:15-cv-11222-SFC-DRG ECF No. 61-29, PageID.1344 Filed 02/10/17 Page 32 of 32