Tips for Siblings: Getting the Future Planning Conversation Started

/in , , , /by The Arc

This tip sheet offers items for siblings to consider when starting the difficult conversation to plan for how their sibling will live in the future.

Your Next Home

/in , , , , /by The Arc

This plain language document shares questions a person may want to consider in a future home and gives tips on how you can get started thinking about a future home.

What to Know About Special Needs Trusts and ABLE Accounts

/in , , , /by The Arc

This plain language document provides an overview of how special needs trusts and ABLE accounts can help people pay for things they need and want.

National Federation of the Blind v. Lamone

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

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.”

Case Documents 

Amicus Brief

Fourth Circuit Opinion

Georgia Advocacy Office v. Georgia

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

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.

Case Documents

Complaint

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

Case Resources

Case Overview

DOJ Letter of Findings

DOJ Complaint

U.S. v. Georgia Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Press Releases

“Parents and Advocates Sue State of Georgia Over Separate and Unequal Education for Thousands of Students With Disabilities”

Related Media

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

The Arc of Delaware v. Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association, Inc.

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

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.

Case Documents

Complaint

Conciliation Agreement

Related Media

Press Release: “The Arc of Delaware Reaches Fair Housing Settlement“

Seth v. District of Columbia

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

State: District of Columbia

Filed: 2018

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Plaintiffs: Mr. Seth

Defendants: District of Columbia, District of Columbia Department on Disability Services

Counsel: The Arc, Brown Goldstein & Levy, Robert Dinerstein, Skadden Arps

Overview: This lawsuit challenges the indefinite incarceration of Mr. Seth, a young man with intellectual disability languishing in federal prison despite not having been convicted of a crime in violation of his right under state and federal law to receive services and treatment in the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs. Mr. Seth, after having been found by the court to be incompetent to stand trial, has been held in federal prison rather than a community-based program in D.C., where he is from and where his family and support system reside. Despite the fact that the District’s Department on Disability Services’ experts concluded that Mr. Seth could be safely served in the community, the District has refused to provide such services to Mr. Seth in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the D.C. Human Rights Act. Because of the District’s inaction, Mr. Seth has been left to languish in federal prison for years, frequently placed in solitary confinement.

Case Documents

Complaint

Proposed Amended Complaint

D.C. Circuit Appellate Brief

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Local D.C. Advocacy Organizations

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Experts in Disability Services

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Former Correctional Officials

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: National Disability Organizations

Related Media

Courthouse News Service: DC Disability Agency Accused of Ignoring Plight of Imprisoned Man

The Education Task Force of the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities (CCD)

/in , , /by The Arc

The Education Task Force monitors federal legislation and regulations that address the educational needs of children with disabilities and their families and advocates for enhanced opportununities.