{"id":417,"date":"2026-05-04T10:31:01","date_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:31:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/?p=417"},"modified":"2026-05-04T10:31:01","modified_gmt":"2026-05-04T10:31:01","slug":"silence-as-punishment-disability-communication-and-the-ada-in-north-carolina-prisons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/2026\/05\/silence-as-punishment-disability-communication-and-the-ada-in-north-carolina-prisons\/","title":{"rendered":"Silence as Punishment: Disability, Communication, and the ADA in North Carolina Prisons"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice\u2019s Civil Rights Division (\u201cDOJ\u201d) announced and entered into a settlement agreement<\/a> with the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (\u201cNCDAC\u201d) to resolve allegations of disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)<\/a>. The agreement reflects ongoing federal enforcement efforts addressing disability rights compliance in correctional settings. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The agreement addresses longstanding failures to provide adequate communication access to incarcerated individuals who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The failures include: failing to timely repair or provide appropriate hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other auxiliary devices; failing to provide access to sign language interpreters, text telephones, and video telephones; and failing to provide effective alerts for routine activities and emergencies. According to the DOJ, these failures denied individuals meaningful participation in core prison services including education, counseling, recreation, vocational training, and religious services.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Under Title II of the ADA, public entities are required to ensure \u201ceffective communication\u201d with individuals with disabilities. This means that communication with people who have disabilities must be as clear and understandable as communications with others, often requiring the provision of auxiliary aids and services such as interpreters or assistive technology. In the correctional context, this requirement takes on heightened significance given the nature of incarceration and the dependence on institutional communications systems. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Agreement<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the heart of the settlement is the ADA\u2019s requirement of \u201ceffective communication,\u201d a standard that requires that communication with individuals with disabilities be as effective as communication with others. The agreement implements this principle through detailed, enforceable obligations. The NCDAC must now provide auxiliary aids and services such as qualified sign language interpreters, videophones, hearing aids, and captioned media. It must also implement \u201cCommunication Plans,\u201d which requires the NCDAC to keep documentation of the individualized description of accommodations that will be provided to each individual with hearing disabilities to ensure effective communication and access to programs, services, facilities, and activities.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notably, the agreement goes beyond general mandates and imposes strict timelines and systemic reforms. For example, prisons must conduct hearing screenings within three days of an individuals intake, develop communication plans within two weeks of the screening, and ensure interpreter availability within two hours of the request. The agreement also requires staff training on the agreement and ADA requirements, centralized tracking of individuals with hearing disabilities, and visual alert systems so that individuals with hearing disabilities do not miss critical announcements. Taken together, these provisions signal a shift from reactive compliance toward proactive, system-wide accessible infrastructure. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These failures are not merely technical violations\u2014they reflect deeper structural inequalities within the prison system. When communication access is denied, individuals with disabilities are effectively excluded from rehabilitative programs, routine activities, and even emergency response. This exclusion reinforces broader patterns of marginalization, where disability status exacerbates the already restrictive conditions of incarceration. The lack of effective communication here operates not just as neglect, but as a systemic barrier to dignity, autonomy, and equal participation, principles which are integral to both the ADA and the broader disability justice movement.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Multi-State Problem<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The North Carolina settlement is not an isolated incident, but part of a broader national pattern of ADA enforcement in correctional systems. Across the United States, prisons and jails have faced scrutiny for failing to accommodate incarcerated individuals with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Arizona<\/a>, the DOJ previously investigated the state prison system for similar ADA violations, including failures to provide interpreters and accessible communication devices. These deficiencies resulted in limited access to medical care, disciplinary hearings, and rehabilitative programs. Subsequent reforms have required improved screening processes, better staff training, and increased availability of auxiliary aids, demonstrating that while systemic change may be slow, it is possible through sustained enforcement. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Massachusetts<\/a> has also faced similar challenges related to disability access in correctional facilities. Advocacy organizations and litigation have highlighted the lack of consistent accommodations for deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, particularly in county jails. In response, some facilities have begun implementing more structured accommodation policies and increasing interpreter access, spurring incremental progress toward ADA compliance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Pennsylvania<\/a>, lawsuits have alleged that correctional institutions failed to provide interpreters and accessible alert systems, leading to missed medical appointments, disciplinary consequences, and isolation. These cases underscore how communication barriers can exacerbate already harsh conditions of confinement. At the same time, settlements and court interventions have pushed institutions to adopt more comprehensive ADA compliance plans, signaling growing recognition of these systemic issues. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Takeaway<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, the North Carolina settlement makes clear that communication access isn\u2019t something separate from incarceration but is part of its basic structure. When incarcerated individuals cannot hear announcements, cannot reliably access interpreters, or cannot depend on assistive devices, it is not just an inconvenience. They are effectively excluded from the basic systems that govern daily life in prison.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is what the ADA\u2019s \u201ceffective communication\u201d requirement is meant to address. It is not simply a technical obligation, but a baseline condition for understanding and participating in programs, services, and institutional processes in a meaningful way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fact that similar issues continue to arise across states suggests that the problem is not limited to isolated noncompliance. It reflects a more structural failure to treat communication as\u00a0essential\u00a0infrastructure. Without that shift, silence will continue to function as a predictable form of exclusion for incarcerated people with disabilities.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Faith Gray<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Class of 2027, Staff Member <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice\u2019s Civil Rights Division (\u201cDOJ\u201d) announced and entered into a settlement agreement with the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction (\u201cNCDAC\u201d) to resolve allegations of disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The agreement reflects ongoing federal enforcement efforts addressing disability rights compliance in correctional settings.  The agreement addresses longstanding failures to provide adequate communication …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[9],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=417"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":418,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/417\/revisions\/418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=417"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=417"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/nccivilrightslaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=417"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}