CVS v. Doe

Filed: October 29, 2021

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The amicus brief argues that long-standing Supreme Court precedent makes clear that most discrimination against people with disabilities comes from “benign neglect” or thoughtlessness — and that removing the ability to get relief from such discrimination would undermine the entire purpose and history of Section 504. The court explained in Alexander v. Choate that congressional intent would be decimated if Section 504 were interpreted to require intent to discriminate.

Excerpt: “Since hearing Choate 36 years ago, the Court has not had the opportunity to address specifically the application of Choate’s “meaningful access” standard, but it has recognized that the discriminatory effects of facially neutral policies are actionable under the principles first established in Section 504 and then applied to additional sectors of our society in the ADA. The Court should adhere to Choate, uphold decades of prior construction of Section 504, and reinforce the protections afforded by that statute, including the protection against conduct that, while unintentional, is discriminatory in its effect by denying people with disabilities meaningful access to goods and services. To do otherwise would have far-reaching implications and would set back the clock on the hard-earned, long-overdue civil rights of people with disabilities.”

Case Documents

The Arc Amicus Brief

Paralyzed Veterans of America Amicus Brief

DOJ Amicus Brief

COPAA Amicus Brief

Related Media

Press Release: Disability Rights Groups Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Protections Against Disability Discrimination

Press Release: The Arc Celebrates CVS Health Commitment with Disability Leaders to Affordable and Equitable Access to Health Care

Disability Community Letter to CVS

CBS News: CVS withdraws Supreme Court case on disability rights, announces new partnership

Disability Scoop: CVS Drops Supreme Court Case Over Disability Community Concerns

Consumer Watchdog: CVS Drops Supreme Court Appeal In Bay Area Case That Challenged Prescription Policies