|
- PIERCE v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, No. 1:2013cv00134 - Document 90 (D. D. C . . .
Because this Court finds that the District’s deliberate indifference to Pierce’s accommodation needs violated Section 504 and Title II as a matter of law, Pierce’s motion for summary judgment on Claims I and II of the complaint will be GRANTED
- Pierce v. District of ColumbiaPierce v. District of Columbia - ACLU of DC
In September 2015, the district court ruled that the District has an affirmative duty to assess the accommodation needs of inmates with disabilities, and that it violated the law when it “did nothing to evaluate Pierce’s need for accommodation, despite [its] knowledge that he was disabled ”
- Pierce v. District of Columbia 1:13-cv-00134 (D. D. C. ) | Civil Rights . . .
The plaintiff claimed that officers at the D C Correctional Treatment Facility denied him adequate accommodations from the moment he arrived The plaintiff’s native language was American Sign Language
- Pierce v. District of Columbia, 146 F. Supp. 3d 197 – CourtListener. com
Opinion for Pierce v District of Columbia, 146 F Supp 3d 197 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to creating high quality open legal information
- Deaf Inmate Denied Accommodations: DC Corrections Must Pay
A US District judge recently ruled in favor of a Deaf inmate, William Pierce, who sued the District of Columbia Department of Corrections for failing to provide appropriate accommodations during his 60-day sentence
- Federal Judge Slams D. C. Jail Officials, Awards $70,000 to Deaf . . . - Patch
The federal jury decided today that the inmate had his rights violated by the D C Department of Corrections under the Americans with Disabilities Act, with U S District Judge
- Pierce v. District of Columbia - Complaint
Defendant District of Columbia intentionally discriminated against Mr Pierce on the basis of his disability by denying him adequate and effective means to communicate with individuals both inside the jail and by telephone with individuals outside the jail The defendant also retaliated against him for seeking accommodation to which he was
- Pierce v. Dist. of Columbia (128 F. Supp. 3d 250) - vLex
Accordingly, Pierce's motion for summary judgment with respect to Claims I and II of the complaint will be GRANTED, and the District's motion for summary judgment as to Claims I, II, and III will be DENIED A separate order consistent with this memorandum opinion will follow
|
|
|