Pyles v. Kamka

Pyles v. Kamka was the first case to address the rights of deaf inmates in prisons under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 794. James A. Pyles, a deaf inmate incarcerated by the State of Maryland, sued the State of Maryland for refusing to provide qualified interpreting services during his detention, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Marc P. Charmatz and Seymour DuBow of the National Association of the Deaf Legal Defense Fund represented Pyles. Kenneth F. Niman worked with them on the case. Stephen H. Sachs and Stephen B. Caplis represented the State of Maryland.

The District Court did not issue an opinion in Pyles. Rather, the two parties reached an agreement in a Consent Decree, which the judge published in [Page 762]the Federal Supplement as Pyles v. Kamka, 491 F. Supp. 204 (D. Md. 1980). The Consent Decree requires the State of Maryland to provide interpreting services upon request by deaf individuals throughout all aspects of prison. These settings included Prison Adjustment Team hearings; written disciplinary reports; counseling (including classification counseling); psychological, psychiatric, and medical care; and any on-the-job training, vocational, or educational program. The Consent Decree also defines a “qualified interpreter” as anyone “certified by the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf or by the Potomac Chapter of the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, or if he/she is on the directory of interpreters for the Deaf, or if he/she is on the directory of interpreters for manual and/or oral interpreters kept by the Maryland state courts pursuant to the state interpreter law, or if he/she is on the list of interpreters compiled by the National Association of the Deaf or the Maryland Association of the Deaf.”

After Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990, courts called into question whether the ADA applied to prisons as a “service, program, or activity” of a public entity, given the involuntary nature of the detention. In Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 US 206 (1998), the Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA applies to all aspects of state and local prisons. By extension, Yeskey establishes that Title II of the ADA likewise requires prisons to provide interpreter services for deaf inmates. Despite this clear federal law, federal and state prisons alike continue to deny deaf inmates the qualified interpreting services necessary for them to access prison services, including medical, psychiatric, and educational services.

Caroline Jackson, Howard Rosenblum, Marc Charmatz, and Debra Patkin

See alsoAmerican with Disabilities Act; Crime and Delinquency; Disability; Interpreting, Legal; Legislation, United States