ILNews

Deaf courtroom spectator gets $124,500 settlement from state of Indiana

Marilyn Odendahl
July 20, 2015
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A deaf Indiana man who was denied a sign-language interpreter in court has reached a $124,500 settlement with the state of Indiana.

The settlement, which is being hailed by the National Association of the Deaf, comes more than three years after Steven “Matt” Prakel, who is deaf, filed a federal lawsuit against the state of Indiana and the judiciary for violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Under the terms of the settlement reached July 17, the plaintiffs are dismissing their claims against two judges and one magistrate judge in Dearborn County in exchange for monetary restitution, according to Prakel’s attorneys. The state of Indiana will pay Prakel and his mother, Carolyn Prakel, $10,000 each in compensatory damages along with $104,500 to their counsel, Stein & Vargas LLP.

The settlement notes the defendants deny all the claims alleged by the plaintiffs and do not admit any violation of any state or federal law or of any liability.

“Courts throughout the United States must provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective communication with deaf and hard of hearing individuals, whether they are parties, witnesses, jurors, judges or spectators,” Howard A. Rosenblum, chief executive officer of the National Association of the Deaf stated in a press release. “This case affirms this basic legal right.”

Prakel filed the lawsuit April 2012 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana after the Dearborn Superior Court No. 1 and Dearborn Circuit Court would not pay for an interpreter so he could understand his mother’s criminal proceedings. The courts contended they did not have to provide Prakel an interpreter because he was a spectator, not a participant in the proceedings.

Among the parties named as defendants were Dearborn Judges James Humphrey and Jonathan Cleary along with Magistrate Judge Kimberly Schmaltz, the chief justice of the Indiana Supreme Court and the division of state court administration.

The District Court subsequently dismissed the case against the state, the chief justice and the state court administration but allowed the suit to proceed against the Dearborn judges and magistrate judge.

In March, the District Court rejected the Dearborn judiciary’s claim of immunity and the case was headed to trial. The District Court entered an order on June 22 that the parties had entered settlement negotiations.

“All I wanted to do was to understand what was being said in court,” Prakel said after the settlement was reached. “Courts need to be accessible when a deaf person attends a court hearing.”

Prakel and his mother were presented by the National Association of the Deaf, Stein & Vargas LLP and the Lorch Law Office LLC.  

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. File under the Sociology of Hoosier Discipline ... “We will be answering the complaint in due course and defending against the commission’s allegations,” said Indianapolis attorney Don Lundberg, who’s representing Hudson in her disciplinary case. FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW ... Lundberg ran the statist attorney disciplinary machinery in Indy for decades, and is now the "go to guy" for those who can afford him .... the ultimate insider for the well-to-do and/or connected who find themselves in the crosshairs. It would appear that this former prosecutor knows how the game is played in Circle City ... and is sacrificing accordingly. See more on that here ... http://www.theindianalawyer.com/supreme-court-reprimands-attorney-for-falsifying-hours-worked/PARAMS/article/43757 Legal sociologists could have a field day here ... I wonder why such things are never studied? Is a sacrifice to the well connected former regulators a de facto bribe? Such questions, if probed, could bring about a more just world, a more equal playing field, less Stalinist governance. All of the things that our preambles tell us to value could be advanced if only sunshine reached into such dark worlds. As a great jurist once wrote: "Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman." Other People's Money—and How Bankers Use It (1914). Ah, but I am certifiable, according to the Indiana authorities, according to the ISC it can be read, for believing such trite things and for advancing such unwanted thoughts. As a great albeit fictional and broken resistance leaders once wrote: "I am the dead." Winston Smith Let us all be dead to the idea of maintaining a patently unjust legal order.

  2. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  3. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  4. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT