Mass. Appeals Court hears argument over ADA accommodation for unusually tall inmate

The Massachusetts Appeals Court heard argument March 18, 2025, in 24 P.H. 23, Joshua Carrier v. James Ryu and James O’Gara, over whether the Commonwealth’s Department of Correction (DOC) must treat Carrier’s height-related needs as an ADA-covered disability. Carrier, appearing pro se, said his 6-foot-7 stature prevents him from using a standard cell mattress and from sitting comfortably at a fixed desk and chair in his cell; the DOC’s attorney said the record does not show a disability that substantially limits a major life activity and that the department has already ordered a longer mattress.

The matter matters because an appellate ruling that height-based restrictions qualify as ADA disabilities could broaden the set of conditions courts treat as disabilities in correctional settings and affect how DOCs nationwide handle housing and equipment accommodations. Justice Greg Massing, sitting with Justices Eric Nyman and Chauncey Wood, heard about Carrier’s long-standing requests for a longer mattress and for minor modifications to the fixed desk-and-chair unit in his cell.

Carrier told the court that for about 10 years the DOC had provided a longer mattress for him, that after a department-wide mattress replacement the longer mattress was removed, and that he has waited months for a replacement. He said the lack of an appropriately sized mattress interferes with sleep and that the department has recognized the need by ordering a longer mattress. He described adapting the bed previously by placing a locker tray over the bed to prevent his ankles from striking the metal railing, and he said the current standard mattress causes numbness in his ankles. Carrier also said the desk in his cell is fixed and the chair is attached by a metal hinge with a notch that prevents the chair from extending; he asked that the notch be removed or that a plastic chair be provided, both of which he said would allow him to use the desk without creating a security risk.

“The department’s position is that height is not per se a disability,” attorney Scott McClain told the panel for the appellees, adding that the record must show that Carrier’s height “substantially limits 1 or more of his major life activities.” McClain said the DOC had provided Carrier with longer mattresses in the past (noting standard mattress lengths of about 76 inches and available longer lengths of 90 and 96 inches) and that the department had ordered a 90-inch mattress after the replacement effort; he described the failure to supply it as a departmental mistake that was being rectified. McClain argued that, even if the mattress affects sleep, the record is sparse on how Carrier’s sleep is substantially impaired and that the issue often falls within housing or medical-restriction processes rather than the ADA.

Carrier told the court he also has dysphagia, a swallowing condition, and said short dining windows and restrictions on eating in the common area limit his ability to eat safely in the time provided. He said the current cell configuration forces him to hold hot food while eating or to lie down to eat, which a doctor has advised against. Carrier said he had raised related issues in other filings and acknowledged he might not have briefed the eating issue below as clearly as the mattress and desk concerns.

The DOC acknowledged that a nurse had observed Carrier could not comfortably sit at the cell desk, but McClain and DOC counsel maintained Carrier could use common-area desks and the dining hall for typing and eating. Justice Chauncey Wood expressed interest in less intrusive changes (removing the notch or providing a plastic chair) and questioned whether those alternatives would address security concerns while meeting Carrier’s needs; McClain said he could not speak to whether those specific measures were implemented elsewhere but reiterated the DOC’s position that the inability to use the specific in-cell desk does not, on this record, rise to the level of an ADA disability.

After questioning both sides, the panel thanked counsel and the appellant and announced the case would be submitted for decision. The court did not issue a rul­ing from the bench; no vote or judgment was recorded at the hearing.

Background and case posture: The appeal follows a trial-court decision rejecting Carrier’s ADA claim on the ground that height was not a covered disability. Carrier argued in a motion for judgment on the pleadings that documentary recognition of a medical impairment would speed future mattress replacement without repeated medical visits and unit-team referrals; the DOC says mattress and seating adjustments have typically been handled as housing or medical-restriction matters. Carrier also reported multiple active civil matters filed since 2021; McClain noted Carrier’s active litigation history while arguing alternatives exist to the in-cell desk and mattress.

The panel’s questions focused on (1) whether the record shows Carrier’s height or the cell configuration substantially limit a major life activity such as sleeping or eating, (2) whether less intrusive accommodations (removing a chair notch or providing a plastic chair) are feasible without compromising security, and (3) whether recognizing Carrier’s claim under the ADA would lower the legal threshold for what counts as a disability. The court took the case under advisement and will issue a written decision.

Quotes in this article are taken from the March 18, 2025, oral argument record: Justice Greg Massing (chair), Justice Eric Nyman, Justice Chauncey Wood, Joshua Carrier (appellant, pro se), and attorney Scott McClain (for appellees).