Self Advocates Becoming Empowered (SABE) works to ensure that people with disabilities are treated as equals and they are given the same choices, rights, responsibilities, and chances to empower themselves as everyone else. SABE is a national board of regional representatives and members from every state in the US.
The Autistic Self Advocacy Network (ASAN) is a national grassroots disability rights organization, advocating for systems change and ensuring that the voices of people with autism are heard. ASAN’s activities include public policy advocacy and leadership trainings for self-advocates. ASAN provides information about autism, disability rights, and systems change to the public through a number of different educational, cultural, and advocacy related projects.
The mission of SARTAC is to strengthen the self-advocacy movement by supporting self advocacy organizations to grow in diversity and leadership. SARTAC shared best practices tools, conducts interviews with self-advocacy leaders, shares success stories, provides training and assistance, and provides self-adovocates scholarships and leadership opportunities.
TASH advocates for human rights and inclusion for people with significant disabilities and support needs – those most vulnerable to segregation, abuse, neglect, and institutionalization. TASH works to advance inclusive communities through advocacy, research, professional development, policy, and information and resources for parents, families, and self-advocates. The inclusive practices TASH validates through research have been shown to improve outcomes for all people.
The Center provides reliable information and assistance to individuals with IDD, their family members and friends, professionals who support them and other members of the community on areas such as person-centered planning, decision-making, housing options, and financial planning.
Planning for the future is important for all families. You can’t do it just once. It’s an ongoing process. The Build Your Plan ® tool helps people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) think about and plan for their future. The interests, preferences, and skills of the person with IDD are the main focus. The tool guides you through important topics, including:
Click on Build Your Plan to get started. You can see your plan and make changes at any time.
This database is searchable by profession and by state.
State: Maryland
Filed: 2015
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Overview: The brief argued that the Maryland Board of Elections’ refusal to use an accessible online ballot marking tool in the absentee voting process violates Title II of the ADA.
Excerpt: “Appellants’ arguments, if accepted by this Court, threaten to undermine the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act in contexts far outside the realm of absentee voting in Maryland. Appellants turn the phrase ‘meaningful access’ on its head, defining it not as the equality of opportunity guaranteed by the statutes and their implementing regulations, but instead as essentially ‘some sort of access to some part of the program.’ This somehow-somewhere standard would significantly reduce the ability of people with disabilities to participate fully and independently in society.”
State: Georgia
Filed: 2017
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Plaintiffs: Georgia Advocacy Office, The Arc, Parents of Children with Disabilities
Defendants: State of Georgia, Georgia Board of Education, Georgia Department of Education, Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities, Georgia Department of Community Health
Counsel: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Center for Public Representation, DLA Piper LLP, Georgia Advocacy Office, Goodmark Law Firm, The Arc
Overview: In 2017, parents of children with disabilities, The Arc, and the Georgia Advocacy Office filed a class action lawsuit in federal court alleging that the state of Georgia discriminated against thousands of public school students with disabilities by providing them with a separate and unequal education via the state’s Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic Supports Program (GNETS). The complaint alleges that the state, in denying GNETS students the opportunity to be educated with their non-disabled peers in neighborhood schools, violates the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Georgia is unique in having established a state-wide educational program—GNETS—that systematically segregates students with behavioral disabilities across the state. Over 5,000 students with disabilities, the disproportionate majority of whom are students of color, have been sent to the GNETS centers. Most of the GNETS centers are housed in completely separate schools (including some that were formerly schools for African-American students in the Jim Crow days). Other GNETS centers are inside regular schools but typically are housed in locked wings or have separate entrances, effectively operating as a separate school within the school. GNETS students are not only segregated from their non-disabled peers but also receive an inferior education. Typically, GNETS students are not taught by certified teachers; many are primarily taught through computers. Students cannot access the basic classes they need to earn a diploma, resulting in a graduate rate of GNETS students of only 10% (compared to a statewide rate of 80%). Many GNETS centers do not provide access to basic school services like gyms, libraries, or science labs. In addition, GNETS students are deprived of important co-curricular opportunities that other students enjoy, such as playing sports or participating in the school play. Parents and students have described GNETS as similar to a prison, with no way out.
In 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice investigated GNETS and found that it violates Title II of the ADA by (1) unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities from their peers and (2) providing opportunities to GNETS students that are unequal to those provided to other students throughout the state. The investigation eventually culminated in a 2016 lawsuit against the state alleging that the state’s administration of the GNETS system violates the ADA by “unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities from their peers” and providing “unequal” education opportunity to GNETS students. On August 11, 2017, the DOJ’s lawsuit was put on hold pending a decision from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding DOJ’s authority to bring suit. Throughout, the State has continued to defend the GNETS program.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings & Plaintiffs’ Motion to Consolidate
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Expert Report of Dr. Judy Elliott in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
Expert Report of Dr. Sally Rogers in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
Expert Report of Dr. Kimm Campbell in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
U.S. v. Georgia Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
The New Yorker: Georgia’s Separate & Unequal Special Education System
Mother Jones: Will Trump’s Justice Department Pay Attention to Disability Rights?
Associated Press: Parents of Disabled Students Suing Georgia in Federal Court
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Georgia Psychoeducational Schools An Unconstitutional ‘Dumping Ground,’ New Suit Claims
The Telegraph: Parents Of Students With Disabilities Sue State Of Georgia, Allege Discrimination
NOS Magazine: Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against ‘Drop Out Factories For Abandoned Kids’
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Georgia ‘Psychoeducational’ Students Segregated By Disability, Race
Atlanta Journal Constitution: In Psychoeducational School, Behavioral Experiment For Troubled Child
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Physical Restraint Common At Psychoeducational Schools
The Atlantic: The Separate, Unequal Education of Students With Special Needs
Atlanta Journal Constitution: Georgia Illegally Segregates Disabled Students, Federal Inquiry Finds
State: Delaware
Filed: 2015
Agencies: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Delaware Division of Human Relations
Complainant: The Arc Delaware
Respondent: Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association, Inc.
Counsel: Relman Dane & Colfax, The Arc, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.
Overview: The Arc Delaware filed a complaint in 2015 with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Delaware Division of Human Relations (DHR) seeking a declaration that Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association (SMFPOA) violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused to approve The Arc of Delaware’s acquisition of property meant to house four individuals with IDD in a single family home integrated within the community. The complaint sought damages to compensate for the loss of housing opportunities and for violations of the federal and Delaware Fair Housing Acts due to disability discrimination.
In 2014, The Arc Delaware’s executive director had submitted a bid on behalf of the organization for a lot owned by SMFPOA. The Arc Delaware intended to build a single family house in a residential subdivision with 65 other lots. His offer was accepted by the seller contingent on SMFPOA’s approval of the sale. However, once SMFPOA learned that residents with IDD would be living there, it told the executive director that such use was barred by its covenants and also expressed concerns about the amount of parking that would be required by the residents’ support staff.
The executive director tried to explain that The Arc of Delaware’s use was protected by the Fair Housing Act and offered to accommodate the extra parking needs while maintaining a uniform appearance within the community. He also offered to give SMFPOA members a tour of a similar home in the area in order to allay any concerns about daily operations. Shortly thereafter, The Arc Delaware received a letter from SMFPOA reiterating its position that the sale was not approved because it would violate SMFPOA’s covenants and suggesting that allowing people with IDD into the community would reduce property values and disturb the “quiet enjoyment” of neighbors. The loss of the property and subsequent delay in state funding deprived The Arc Delaware and its clients of at least four community-based housing opportunities.
The complaint filed with HUD noted that the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) makes it unlawful to “make unavailable or deny” a dwelling because of disability as well as to refuse to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Federal courts have consistently held that community supported housing for unrelated individuals with IDD does not constitute a “business” and does not violate “single family” restrictions, and Delaware law expressly recognizes such housing as “single family” properties for zoning purposes. Further, the courts recognize that most discriminatory remarks are made in coded language, such as the need to “maintain property value.”
Once the complaint had been filed, DHR performed an investigation and issued a finding of discrimination in 2016. S
Status: In 2016, following the finding of discrimination, the parties agreed to settle the case and entered into a Conciliation Agreement with DHR, HUD, and The Arc of Delaware. Among other things, the Conciliation Agreement requires SMFPOA to: 1) Apply the same terms and conditions of rental to anyone occupying its properties without regard to disability or any other protected class; 2) Provide written compliance reports to DHR and/or HUD when requested; 3) Allow HUD and DHR to inspect the premises at any time within one year of the agreement; 4) Notify its members and residents in writing of rules, policies, and practices relating to its non-discrimination policy and to prominently display the Equal Housing Opportunity logo within any relevant advertisements it distributes; 5) Ensure that all of its current board members receive comprehensive training on the Fair Housing Act within 90 days of signing the agreement and that all future board members receive such training within 30 days of their election; 6) Pay The Arc Delaware $55,000 in damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
Press Release: “The Arc of Delaware Reaches Fair Housing Settlement“
Will you pledge to vote this November?
