Woods v. Centro of Oneida, Inc., Central New York Regional Transportation Authority

/in , , /by Pam Katz

Filed: February 10, 2023

Court: Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief explaining why accessible bus stops are critical to the lives of people with mobility disabilities and required under federal disability rights laws.

Excerpt: “Accessible, integrated transportation is essential to the lives of disabled people. The ADA’s findings and remedial purpose reflect this fact. The September 19, 2022, Order of the district court frustrates the ADA’s findings and remedial purpose…If permitted to stand, it will allow public entities to evade their affirmative obligations and deflect responsibility for program accessibility to other parties who may have different obligations, or no obligations at all, to disabled people. If such an avoidance of responsibility and accountability is permitted, people with disabilities will be burdened with having to figure out access to public services, programs, and activities on their own by analyzing the respective roles and responsibilities of an assortment of unrelated public and private parties. Such an outcome could not be further from the “clear and enforceable” standards Congress envisioned when enacting the ADA.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

/in , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

Filed: November 16, 2022

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: Amicus brief explaining that students with disabilities are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies to bring non-IDEA civil rights claims.

Excerpt: “…the decision below significantly undermines IDEA’s policies of protecting students’ rights and the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures as a preferred method for resolving IDEA claims. If allowed to stand, the decision will force parents who could otherwise achieve all available IDEA relief through settlement to nonetheless litigate their claims, lest they be left foreclosed from pursuing non-IDEA civil rights claims as Miguel Perez (Miguel) was. This would be true even though an administrative record regarding appropriate educational instruction serves no purpose whatsoever for adjudicating non IDEA claims and, more significantly, would delay the implementation of any appropriate IDEA remedy…In other words, it adds nothing of value and may further harm students who already prevailed on their IDEA claims.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Press Releases

National Disability Rights Groups File Amicus in Perez v. Sturgis

National Disability Rights Groups Applaud SCOTUS Decision in Perez v. Sturgis

Related Media

Disability Scoop: Supreme Court Case Could Change How Special Ed Disputes Are Handled

Disability Scoop: Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Student in Special Ed Case

USA Today: Special Education Clash: How One Student’s Supreme Court Case Could Make Schools More Accountable

K-12 Dive: 3 Takeaways From the Perez Special Education Case

Promising Programmatic Practices for People With Dual Diagnosis

/in , , , , , /by Pam Katz

Incompass provides residential and day/employment programming for a dually diagnosed, forensically involved population as well as a residential program for individuals diagnosed with Huntington’s Disorder. In this webinar, Chris Snell, MS and Dorian Crawford, PsyD of Incompass Human Services will provide an overview of community-based service promising practices for an emerging, dually diagnosed population.

View session presentation slides here.

Engagement in the Early Intervention Program Planning Process for Parents and Professionals

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

Early intervention program planning can be challenging at times for students, parents, teachers, service providers, and administrators—but it doesn’t have to be.

Enter your information below to watch a free video. You will hear from Dr. Rachel Brady about IDEA Part C & B, program planning requirements, and strategies that support more meaningful engagement in early intervention programs. Equity issues and the points of advocacy at the individual and systems levels are also explored through examples, discussion, and a review of available resources.

By completing this form you agree to receive email communications from The Arc and/or our affiliated chapters. You may unsubscribe from these communications at any time. For more information, check out our privacy policy.

Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

Filed: September 22, 2022

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: Amicus brief explaining the importance of individuals having the ability to sue state and local governments when their civil rights are violated under Medicaid and other public programs.

Excerpt: The linkage between the RA’s and the ADA’s antidiscrimination mandate and Medicaid provisions implementing that mandate is evidence that Congress intended both aspects of its disability-rights scheme to be privately enforceable. That conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Congress, when enacting the ACA, broadened Medicaid’s “entitlement” provisions by expanding the definition of “medical assistance.” Congress did so in direct response to judicial decisions narrowly construing that term in § 1983 suits brought by people with disabilities. Petitioners’ request that this Court abandon its longstanding holding that Spending Clause legislation can give rise to a private right of action under § 1983 would undermine Congress’s scheme for enforcing disability rights. People with disabilities, including children, regularly bring private lawsuits to enforce each of their independent, mutually reinforcing entitlements under the RA, the ADA, and Medicaid. Those lawsuits have vindicated important rights, providing access to life-saving therapies and everyday living support services close to one’s family and community. Absent a private right of action to enforce their Medicaid guarantees, enforcement of Medicaid would be left to the federal government, which may have few enforcement options other than reduction of States’ Medicaid funding. That may exacerbate rather than remedy States’ failure to comply with Medicaid’s requirements.

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Supreme Court Opinion

Press Releases

Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court Case Emphasizes Harms to People with Disabilities

A Major Win for Disability Rights From SCOTUS

Related Media

Indy Star: Op/Ed: Treatment of patient at Indiana nursing home at center of U.S. Supreme Court case

Indy Star: Marion County agency wants SCOTUS to strip protections for millions of vulnerable Americans

Indy Star: Supreme Court denies Health & Hospital Corp.’s effort to block civil rights lawsuits

Yahoo News: Here’s why Nancy Pelosi, Todd Rokita, Biden administration care about Indiana nursing home

Disability Scoop: Supreme Court Case Could Sharply Limit Disability Rights

Disability Scoop: Supreme Court To Hear Case That Could Have Major Consequences For People With Disabilities

Vox: The nightmarish Supreme Court case that could gut Medicaid, explained

Vox: Medicaid appears likely to survive its latest encounter with the Supreme Court

MarketWatch: Supreme Court weighs 83 million Medicaid enrollees’ access to the courts

BU Today: The Most Consequential Supreme Court Case You Haven’t Heard Of

The 19th: Supreme Court case altering Medicaid is ‘an assault’ on older adults and people with disabilities, advocates warn

The 19th: Disability and aging advocates celebrate Supreme Court’s Talevski decision

Mother Jones: SCOTUS Just Upheld the Civil Rights of Millions of Disabled and Aging People

Wyfi: Supreme Court reinforces that Medicaid beneficiaries can sue states if their rights are violated

Axios: How nursing homes could face more patient lawsuits

 

Exploring Locative Technology: What You Need to Know to Address Wandering

/in , , , , , , , /by Pam Katz

During this webinar, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) discusses the pros and cons of using tracking devices in wandering situations, emphasizing some effective alternatives.

The speakers are two parents and police officers, Laurie Reyes and Stefan Bjes, and Board Member, poet, and self-advocate Russell Lehmann.

Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco

/in , /by Pam Katz

Filed: April 29, 2022

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief explaining that failure to comply with the ADA’s accessibility standards for new construction of public areas frustrates the goals and objectives of the ADA and discriminates against people with disabilities.

Excerpt: “It is essential to keep in mind that the ADA was enacted, and the requirements for new construction and alterations adopted, over 30 years ago. The City is presumed to have had notice of its obligations throughout this time. Yet rather than recognize that the City remains out of compliance with its new construction and alteration mandates, the district court’s order relieves the City of liability based on vague, uncertain, and unenforceable plans, “goals,” “continuing progress towards program access,” and “additional improvements . . . scheduled to be completed shortly,” Uncertain plans, vague goals, and unenforceable promises of future work are of no value to people with disabilities who must struggle daily with inaccessible facilities and programs. If such a low standard of accessibility is required, public entities will have no incentive to comply with ADAAG at the time they undertake the new construction or alterations of facilities. The more stringent accessibility requirements of section 35.151 will be gutted. A public entity will only have to articulate a “plan” towards future compliance to successfully evade legal challenge. Such a delay in access and integration cannot stand. It is not what Congress intended.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Education for Students With Disabilities in the Juvenile Justice System

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

Students with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) do not lose their right to public education, including all rights to special education, when they are adjudicated delinquent. Once in the juvenile justice system, young people with IDD may be placed in a variety of settings, ranging from home confinement to foster homes to group residential settings and so on, all the way down the continuum to secure detention and solitary confinement. Wherever they are, they have the same rights to access the coursework the state requires for all students, as well as the services and supports provided by their IEP and/or Section 504 plan. In a secure setting, the way in which some services are provided may be altered, but the services cannot be denied.

Speaker Bio: A litigator with more than 26 years of experience in juvenile and education law, Diane Smith Howard’s work at NDRN focuses on conditions for children, youth and adults with disabilities in institutional systems. Specifically, youth in the juvenile justice, child welfare, education, and refugee resettlement systems, and adults with disabilities in the criminal justice and mental health systems.

Diane holds a B.A. with honors from Colby College, Waterville, ME, and a J. D. from Wayne State University Law School, Detroit, MI. Diane’s passion for this work is rooted in a family connection to foster and adopted children with disabilities, and to adults who are at risk of institutionalization due to a lack of community supports.

Download the presentation here.

For further questions, please email school@thearc.org.

Talk About Sexual Violence: Supported Decision-Making

/in , , , , /by Pam Katz

This eight-minute video helps medical professionals understand what supported-decision making is and why it is important to use when assisting victims of sexual violence who have an intellectual or developmental disability.

Talk About Sexual Violence: Plain Language

/in , , , , , , /by Pam Katz

This eight-minute video provides health care professionals with a basic understanding of plain language and how to use it so that patients with IDD can better understand information and more fully participate in health care decisions.