Legal Professionals Archives - Page 4 of 13

Bacote v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filed: January 24, 2023

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit

Overview: Amicus brief explaining that people with disabilities have the right to individually sue executive agencies for discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Excerpt: “The need for a private right of action to secure nondiscriminatory treatment from our Federal government goes far beyond Mr. Bacote’s individual experiences. People with disabilities participate in myriad Federal programs…A contrary decision would close the courthouse doors to disabled people seeking to ensure access to National Parks, accessibly-formatted information from government agencies, effective communication in veterans and other healthcare facilities, and reasonable accommodations in Federal prisons.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

November 17, 2022/in Advocate, Criminal Justice Professionals, Family member, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Person with a disability, Victim Services Professionals All States Advocacy, Civil rights, Education Litigation/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

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

Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski

September 26, 2022/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Family member, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Person with a disability, Service provider / DSP, Victim Services Professionals Advocacy, Civil rights, Health, Health Care/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

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

Williams v. Carvajal

July 12, 2022/in Criminal Justice Professionals, Law Enforcement/First Responders/Corrections, Legal Professionals Criminal justice Litigation/by Pam Katz

Filed: June 21, 2022

Court: Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: This amicus brief explains why requiring prisoners with disabilities to go through additional administrative burdens to file grievances when in prison violates the ADA and Section 504.

Excerpt: The purpose of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA in this context is to ensure that individuals with disabilities are not required to navigate draconian systems just to access the same program as similarly situated people without a disability, based solely on their disability status. The decision of the district court represents a classic example of a person with a disability being forced to jump through more hoops than is required of their non-disabled brethren…Only prisoners with disabilities are required to “exhaust” the additional procedure; prisoners without disabilities are not. Rather than ensuring that the barriers faced are no greater for a person with a disability, the decision of the Court below ignores the purpose behind the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA by erecting additional barriers for individuals with disabilities. While complying with complex administrative grievance processes can be challenging for anyone, prisoners with disabilities face unique challenges. Failing to provide reasonable accommodations to those prisoners only exacerbates those challenges. Singling out this exact population for additional complex grievance requirements will undermine the enforcement of disability law in prisons without any countervailing benefit in screening out meritorious claims.

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco

May 12, 2022/in Family member, Legal Professionals California Civil rights Litigation/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

United States v. Mississippi

April 20, 2022/in Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Legal Professionals Mississippi Civil rights, Community-based LTSS Litigation/by Pam Katz

Filed: April 5, 2022

Court: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief supporting the district court holding that Mississippi’s mental health system depends too heavily on institutionalization and does not provide the community-based services that Title II of the ADA and Supreme Court precedent under Olmstead require.

Excerpt: “Because the United States established each of the three components under Olmstead, the district court concluded that Mississippi was required to provide the community-based services that had been lacking. This ruling tracked established precedent, was supported by the evidence, and should be affirmed.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School District

March 9, 2022/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Legal Professionals California Education Litigation/by Pam Katz

Filed: March 3, 2022

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: The District Court denied D.R., a student with a disability, a more inclusive placement because he failed to demonstrate “appropriate educational benefit” from inclusion in general education. The amicus brief argues that, by placing the onus on students to prove that they can benefit from general education, the District Court would overturn fifty years of Congressional and judicial consensus that students with disabilities should be educated in inclusive settings “whenever possible.”

Excerpt: “The IDEA’s language, legislative history, and judicial interpretation speak with one voice: ‘To the maximum extent appropriate,’ students with disabilities must be educated ‘with children who are not disabled.’ This robust presumption of inclusion is reflected in the IDEA’s procedural requirements, which require Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to account affirmatively for ‘the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in the regular class.’ The IDEA codified an emerging consensus from landmark special education cases that schools must educate students with disabilities in integrated settings wherever possible. Congress later amended the IDEA to further strengthen the LRE requirement in light of new education research, describing it as ‘a presumption that children with disabilities are to be educated in regular classes.’…The presumption of inclusion is so robust that it may even justify placement in general education in the rare case where the more restrictive setting may be educationally superior.”

Case Documents

D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School District Amicus Brief

D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified School District Opinion

Kligler v. Healy

February 18, 2022/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Family member, Legal Professionals Massachusetts Civil rights, Health Care Litigation/by Pam Katz

Filed: February 14, 2022

Court: Supreme Court of Massachusetts

Overview: The brief argues that whether a constitutional right to assisted suicide exists must be addressed from the perspective of people with disabilities, the class of people who will be most adversely impacted if such a right is found. Amici discuss how assisted suicide is part of a long history of discrimination and bias against people with disabilities in medical settings. Amici also discuss how legalized assisted suicide amplifies ableist beliefs about the quality and value of disabled lives and how supposed safeguards are inadequate to protect people with disabilities.

Excerpt: “Legalizing assisted suicide in Massachusetts would add to the…history of discrimination and bias against people with disabilities. It would establish a discriminatory double standard for how health care providers, government authorities, and others treat disabled individuals versus others. Only disabled people would be removed from the protections of generally applicable laws on abuse, neglect, and homicide. And only disabled people would face an offer of assisted suicide, as opposed to an offer of services and supports, in response to suicidal ideations.”

Case Documents

Kligler v. Healy Amicus Brief

Kligler v. Healy Opinion

#FreeBritney: Lessons for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Their Families

October 13, 2021/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Family member, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Service provider / DSP All States Civil rights, Family support and future planning Webinar/by Pam Katz

Britney Spears’ public battle over her conservatorship is shining a light on some of the broader challenges that people with disabilities face under guardianship, which is a term some states use for that kind of court involvement. This webinar describes some of the issues being highlighted in the media from Ms. Spears’ case, how they might apply to people with IDD, and alternative approaches that individuals with IDD and their families might consider.

Webinar slides

Webinar transcript

The Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds

September 8, 2021/in Advocate, Legal Professionals Iowa Civil rights, Education Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: Iowa

Filed: 2021

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa

Plaintiffs: The Arc of Iowa and parents of students with disabilities

Defendant: Governor Kim Reynolds, Iowa Department of Education, individual school districts

Counsel: The Arc, ACLU, ACLU of Iowa, Disability Rights Iowa, Arnold & Porter Law Firm, Tom Duff Law Firm

Overview: In the final days of the 2021 legislative session, the Iowa General Assembly passed HF 847, which prohibits school districts in Iowa from requiring everyone to wear masks in their schools. As the school year begins and COVID cases soar, school districts face a dilemma: whether to comply with HF 847 or whether to meet their obligations under federal disability rights laws by protecting the health, safety, and dignity of their students with disabilities and providing equal access to their education. Parents of children with disabilities that put them at risk of severe illness should they contract COVID also face a dilemma: whether to send their children to school at risk to their health and even lives or whether to keep them at home at the expense of their education and development. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provide broad protections for individuals with disabilities. Both federal disability rights laws prohibit outright exclusion, denial of equal access, or unnecessary segregation of students with disabilities in public education.