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

United States v. Mississippi

/in , , , /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

Kligler v. Healy

/in , , , , /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

CVS v. Doe

/in /by Pam Katz

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

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

/in , , , , , , , /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

/in , , /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.

Case Documents

Complaint

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order

Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

American Academy of Pediatrics Amicus Brief

Order Granting Extension of Temporary Restraining Order

Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Eighth Circuit Brief

Eighth Circuit American Academy of Pediatrics Amicus Brief

Eighth Circuit Opinion

Eighth Circuit Per Curiam Opinion

Order on Motions to Dismiss and Summary Judgment

Press Releases

Lawsuit Challenges Iowa Law Banning Schools from Requiring Masks

Federal Court Blocks Iowa’s Law Banning Masking Requirements in Schools

Mask Mandate Preliminary Injunction Continues to Protect Iowa Children

Federal Appeals Court Decision Ensures Iowa Schools Can Require Masking to Protect Students with Disabilities

Related Media

Associated Press: Parents of disabled kids sue over Iowa ban on mask mandates

Des Moines Register: Parents of students with disabilities sue over Iowa’s COVID mask mandate ban in schools

KCRG: Parents of students with disabilities, ACLU sue Iowa over mask mandate ban law

We Are Iowa: ‘Not an equal education’: Parents of kids with disabilities sue over Iowa ban on mask mandates

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Lawsuit: Iowa’s school mask mandate ban violates disability rights

Business Insider: Iowa ban on mask mandates at schools overturned by federal judge

WQAD8: Davenport Education Association praises federal judge’s order to allow Iowa schools to mandate masks

Des Moines Register: Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds asks judge to reinstate mask mandate ban, citing concerns from parents

The Gazette: Documents: COVID outbreaks at nearly quarter of Iowa schools

Des Moines Register: Iowa school districts may continue mask mandates after judge grants preliminary injunction

NBC News: Federal judge blocks Iowa’s ban on school mask mandates

ABC Action News: Families of children with disabilities challenge mask mandate bans

Des Moines Register: Federal court will decide the fate of mask mandates in Iowa schools

KETV Omaha: Federal judges hear Iowa’s appeal over injunction of law that bans school mask mandates

Courthouse News Service: Iowa asks appeals court to uphold ban on mask mandates in schools

Iowa Public Radio: State attorneys ask appeals court to restore Iowa’s ban on school mask mandates

Des Moines Register: Iowa will not enforce school mask mandate ban for now, Attorney General’s Office says

Iowa Capital Dispatch: Appeals court rules that some Iowa schools can impose mask mandates

Our Quad Cities: ACLU, others celebrate federal ruling on Iowa mask mandate in schools

Education Week: Relaxed Mask Guidelines Raise Anxiety for Parents of Children With Disabilities

ACLU Iowa: 8th Circuit Court Decision Allows Iowa Schools To Protect Students With Disabilities With Masking Under Federal Law

Des Moines Register: Iowa must permit school districts to require masks in some cases, court rules; Iowa to appeal

Associated Press: Federal court dismisses case against Iowa governor’s ban on school mask mandates

Houston Area Urban League v. Abbott

/in , , /by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: 2021

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Plaintiffs: The Arc Texas, Houston Justice, Houston Area Urban League, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Jeffrey Lamar Clemons

Defendant: Governor Gregory Abbott and various state officials

Counsel: The Arc, NAACP LDF, Reed Smith LLP

Overview: For the past 150 years, the State of Texas has had a long track record of excluding and discouraging Black and Latino residents of the State from exercising their fundamental right to vote. Voters with disabilities, including Black and Latino voters with disabilities, have also persistently experienced barriers in accessing their right to vote in Texas. The State’s policies of exclusion and restrictive voting laws have resulted in chronically low voter turnout. In passing S.B. 1, instead of making the election process safer or more secure, the law eliminates methods and opportunities of voting disproportionately used by Black and Latino voters, burdening or effectively disenfranchising these voters by raising the time, cost, and risk associated with exercising their constitutional right to vote. The law also erects barriers to voting that will disproportionately and unlawfully deny equal access to individuals with disabilities.

Case Documents

Second Amended Complaint

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Order on Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on ADA and 504 Claims

Exhibits Supporting Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on ADA and 504 Claims

Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Claims Under the Americans With Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Claims under Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act)

Press Releases

Lawsuit Filed Challenging New Texas Law Targeting Voting Rights

Federal Court Strikes Down Texas’ Election Law Provisions Restricting Assistance for Limited English-Speaking and Disabled Voters

Fighting for an Inclusive Democracy

Texas Law Punishes Voters

Landmark Trial Challenging Regressive Voting Rights Provisions in Texas Senate Bill 1 Concludes

Federal Court Strikes Down Restrictive, Suppressive Texas Voting Measures in S.B. 1 That Limited Voting Assistance

Related Media

AP News: Texas flagged 27,000 mail ballots for rejection in primary

CNN: How new voting restrictions threaten ballot access for disabled voters

Courthouse News Service: Voters with disabilities face new barriers over Texas voting law

Democracy Docket: Texas Omnibus Voter Suppression Law S.B. 1 Will Be Put to the Test at Federal Trial

KAH Consulting Group: Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Rallies Against Texas Senate Bill 1 in San Antonio

KWTX: Texans with disabilities fear new restrictions on voting help could mean criminal charges at the polls

Law360 Pulse: Texas DA Ordered To Face Voter Discrimination Suits

Law360: How Lawyers Are Mobilizing To Protect The Vote

NewsOne: NAACP Legal Defense Fund Leads Challenge Against New Texas Voter Suppression Law

New York Times: New Voting Laws Add Difficulties for People With Disabilities

New York Times: ‘My Vote Was Rejected’: Trial Underway in Texas Over New Voting Law

Pew: Voters with Disabilities Face New Ballot Restrictions Ahead of Midterms

Politico: Why Election Laws in Georgia and Texas Remain a Threat

The Texas Tribune: Gov. Greg Abbott signs Texas voting bill into law, overcoming Democratic quorum breaks

The Texas Tribune: What’s at Stake in the Long-Awaited Trial Over Texas’s Sweeping 2021 Elections Law

USA Today: New election laws could create barriers for voters with disabilities

Vox: Democrats’ fears about restricting mail-in voting were confirmed in Texas

Texas Tribune: Judge strikes down strict voter assistance rules in Texas’ 2021 rewrite of election laws

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

/in , /by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: August 30, 2021

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The Fifth Circuit eliminated an entire class of damages that those who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination can obtain under the ADA and Section 504—remedies for their mental distress and emotional injury. Amici argue that without the availability of these damages, some individuals who have been denied a legal right in violation of federal law will have no remedy.

Excerpt: “Often, violations of the relevant statutes do not cost individuals with disabilities money, nor do they impose physical harm. Instead, they are humiliated, singled out, mocked, or made to go without regular access to the service to which they are entitled. Those are all serious harms that cannot be disregarded as mere annoyance or passing embarrassment that might not justify recovery. Such core harms to human dignity are the very injuries that the Rehabilitation Act, Title VI, Title IX, and the Affordable Care Act are meant to prohibit. Taking away an important remedy for these harms would rob our civil rights statutes of their force.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Related Media

Press Release: The Arc Reacts to Supreme Court Ruling Weakening Remedies Available to People with Disabilities Experiencing Discrimination

In re Britney Jean Spears

/in /by The Arc

State: California

Filed: July 12, 2021

Court: California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Central District

Overview: This amicus brief provides guidance to the Court on the importance of ensuring that a conservatee can select her own lawyer, where, as here, she has expressed a desire and an ability to do so. The brief provides statutory and Constitutional support for this right. The brief further outlines the importance of ensuring access to information and tools relevant to the selection of counsel, and offering supported decision-making, if a conservatee wishes.

Excerpt: “Amici respectfully urge this Court to ensure that Ms. Spears is both legally authorized and practically able to select her own successor lawyer. Amici urge this Court to ensure that Ms. Spears is granted access to the information and tools necessary to select a lawyer, including confidential internet and telephone access. Amici urge this Court to offer to Ms. Spears the opportunity to use supported decision-making to select her lawyer.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Related Media

Press Release: The Arc and Coalition of Disability and Civil Rights Organizations Urge Court to Allow Britney Spears to Select Her Own Attorney in Conservatorship Case

Los Angeles Magazine: The ACLU Says Britney Spears Should Be Able to Pick Her Own Attorney

The New York Times: Britney Spears’s Case Calls Attention to Wider Questions on Guardianship

The Washington Post: What ‘Free Britney’ shares with ‘Justice for Jenny’

Independent: ACLU and disability groups file amicus brief in support of Britney Spears’ effort to end conservatorship

KQED: Britney Spears Offers Disturbing Testimony About Her Conservatorship

MSN: ACLU and disability groups file amicus brief in support of Britney Spears’ effort to end conservatorship

Salon: Britney Spears’ plight reveals the justice system’s bias against those who live with mental illness

Washington Lawyer: Reforming Conservatorship: A Battle Over Best Interests

Examining How Crisis Standards of Care May Lead to Intersectional Medical Discrimination Against COVID-19 Patients

/in , , , , , /by Pam Katz

Black, Indigenous and People of Color, disabled people, higher weight people and older adults have historically experienced and continue to experience discrimination by medical professionals. In health care settings, members of these communities face pervasive negative biases and inaccurate assumptions about their value, quality of life, capacity to communicate and make decisions, and likelihood of survival.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, these biases can have serious and even deadly consequences. Such biases may be exacerbated when hospitals are faced with scarce resources and must make decisions about which critically ill patients should receive treatment. The “crisis standards of care” which are used by many states and hospitals to make these decisions, have too often reflected these biases. It is crucial that these standards be tailored to avoid unlawful discrimination.

This guide provides: (1) an explanation of what crisis standards of care are and how they may perpetuate discrimination; (2) the principles that should apply to crisis standards of care to prevent discrimination; (3) the civil rights laws that apply to the use of crisis standards of care; and (4) recommended strategies to ensure the non-discriminatory application of crisis standard of care guidelines.