Ybarra v. Gittere et. al.

/in /by The Arc

Filed: August 29, 2023

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief in a death penalty case filed to prevent a man with an intellectual disability from facing execution.

Excerpt: “Relying on stereotypes or lay assumptions about what a person with ID “must” look like, or what people with ID “cannot” do, rather than applying clinical standards for assessment and diagnosis may result in an unreasonable (and invalid) interpretation of the diagnostic facts in an Atkins evaluation. See, e.g., Brumfield v. Cain, 576 U.S. 305, 312-320 (2015) (finding an unreasonable interpretation of the facts where a state court abandoned clinical standards in determining that an individual was ineligible for an Atkins adjudication). In this context, a clinically invalid assessment risks execution of an individual with ID, a clear Constitutional violation.”

Case Documents

Ybarra v. Gittere et. al. Amicus Brief

The Arc’s Congressional Leave-Behind for the HCBS Relief Act

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

The Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) Relief Act of 2023 was introduced in Congress by Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) and Representative Debbie Dingell (D-MI). The bill would provide two years of additional Medicaid funds to improve access to HCBS by increasing direct care worker pay and benefits; decrease the number of people on waiting lists for HCBS; and pay for assistive technologies, staffing, and other costs that facilitate community integration.

Griffith v. El Paso County Colorado

/in /by The Arc

Filed: August 25, 2023

Court: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief filed explaining that people with disabilities, including people who identify as having gender dysphoria, are not required to show that their exact disability is well-settled across the courts and are entitled to compensatory damages for emotional distress under Title II of the ADA.

Excerpt: “[T]he court erroneously posited that a defendant can be shielded from liability for damages for intentional discrimination based on a contention that one of the elements of the plaintiff’s claim—here, whether the Plaintiff was legally disabled—was unsettled. If permitted to stand, the district court’s analysis will allow entities free rein to discriminate unless and until all courts agree a condition is a covered disability. This will severely weaken enforcement of the ADA… In Cummings, the Supreme Court addressed the very limited question of whether emotional distress damages are available under Section 504 and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116 (“Section 1557″)… The expansion of Cummings’ bar on emotional distress damages to Title II of the ADA would eliminate an essential remedy that Congress intended to make available to victims of disability discrimination when the ADA was enacted.”

Case Documents

Griffith v. El Paso County Colorado Amicus Brief

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

/in /by The Arc

Filed: August 9, 2023

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Overview: Amicus brief filed in case before the Supreme Court that will decide whether testers – disabled people who investigate compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – have the ability to sue businesses for discrimination when their rights under that law are violated.

Excerpt: “Under the Reservation Rule, information about hotel accessibility features must be posted on hotel websites. 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1). Unfortunately, despite the 1990 enactment of the ADA and 2010 promulgation of the Reservation Rule, people with disabilities regularly encounter inaccurate or incomplete information, or no information at all, when they attempt to ascertain a hotel’s accessibility features online. The message these individuals receive during these encounters is that their patronage is less valuable and desirable than the patronage of nondisabled guests because the public accommodation did not consider disabled people among its potential customers…By making the apparently advantageous business decision to share information about its hotels with a much larger audience over the Internet, while simultaneously failing to provide the accessibility information that disabled members of that audience need in order to be treated equally…Acheson is discriminating against every disabled person who encounters that noncompliant online reservations service. Each of these individuals— interacting with this noncompliant reservations service — could suffer their own concrete and particularized injury: the dignitary harm of disregard and erasure that Title III was enacted to prevent.”

Case Documents

Disability Antidiscrimination Law Scholars Amicus Brief

Disability Rights Groups Amicus Brief

Press Release

Amicus Brief Filed in U.S. Supreme Court Case Emphasizes Importance of Testers to ADA Enforcement

Related Media

Disability Scoop: Disability Advocates Urge Supreme Court Not to Limit ADA Protections

USA Today: ‘Sleeping in my car.’ This Supreme Court Case Could Change How Disabled Americans Book Hotel Rooms

Slate: The Americans With Disabilities Act Is Under Threat at the Supreme Court

The Arc Responds to ED’s Proposed Rule to Remove Parental Consent for Billing Medicaid in Schools

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

The Arc submitted a comment on the proposed rule to streamline the parental consent process when billing Medicaid for services received in school. The Arc’s comments emphasized the experience of some families being denied outside services when Medicaid was billed for school services.

The Arc Responds to CMS’ Proposed Rule, Ensuring Access to Medicaid Services

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

The proposed “Ensuring Access to Medicaid Services” rule would create new requirements for state programs to improve access to care, quality, and health outcomes and better address health equity issues in the Medicaid program. The Arc submitted detailed comments on the proposal, particularly related to access to home and community-based services (HCBS).

The Arc Responds to AbilityOne Commission’s Proposed Competition Rule

/in , , , , , /by The Arc

The Arc submitted comments for a rule that would advance workers rights in the AbilityOne program. The Arc mentioned concerns over the potential negative impact on nonprofit agencies providing quality jobs. The Arc recommends aligning the rule with the 898 Panel’s recommendations to mitigate these risks.

Osseo Areas Schools v. A.J.T.

/in , , /by Pam Katz

Filed: April 21, 2023

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit

Overview: Amicus brief to safeguard parental involvement in the IEP process and ensure children have access to a full school day as part of a free and appropriate education.

Excerpt: “…when a school district designs a program and placement without considering the student’s actual needs and parental input, it violates IDEA…Courts have recognized that shortening school days for IDEA-eligible children based on administrative convenience rather than individual student needs can cause substantive harm…IDEA’s procedural safeguards, especially the right to meaningful parental participation, exist to ensure the delivery of meaningful educational benefit to all children with disabilities. Because of Osseo’s undisputed failure to comply with IDEA’s procedural mandates, A.J.T. did not receive an appropriately ambitious program with challenging objectives.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief 

The Arc Responds to Proposed AbilityOne Policies

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

The Arc supports the proposed rule but has recommendations. The recommendations include changes to strengthen worker protections and ensure clarity in eligibility and employment standards.

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