Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

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

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

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.

Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Kemp

State: Georgia

Filed: 2021

Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

Plaintiffs: Sixth District of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, Delta Sigma Theta Sorority Inc., Georgia Muslim Voter Project, Women Watch Afrika, Latino Community Fund Georgia, Southern Christian Leadership Conference, The Arc Georgia, Georgia Advocacy Office, and Georgia ADAPT.

Defendants: Governor Brian Kemp and other state and local election officials

Counsel: Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Wilmer Hale, Davis Wright Tremaine, The Arc of the United States

Overview: After Georgia voters turned out in record numbers for the 2020 presidential election and U.S. Senate elections in early 2021, state legislators passed a sweeping – and unconstitutional – voting law that threatened to massively disenfranchise voters, particularly voters of color and voters with disabilities. This lawsuit challenges multiple provisions of the law, also known as SB 202, including the following items.

  • A ban on “line warming,” where volunteers provide water and snacks to people waiting in long lines to vote, a common occurrence at precincts with a large population of voters of color.
  • A severe restriction on the use of mobile voting units, which have been used to address a shortage of accessible and secure polling locations that previously resulted in long lines of voters at existing and traditional polling locations.
  • Additional and onerous identification requirements for requesting and casting an absentee ballot.
  • A compressed period for requesting absentee ballots.
  • Restrictions on the use of secure ballot drop boxes.
  • Disqualification of provisional ballots cast in a voter’s county of residence but outside the voter’s precinct before 5 p.m. Previously, votes for all the races to which the person was eligible to vote on that precinct’s provisional ballot were counted.
  • A drastic reduction of early voting in runoff elections.

Voters with disabilities have received scant attention in Georgia’s battles over voting rights but have borne the brunt of historical and continuing discrimination and neglect in all spheres of public life. Rather than celebrating the strong turnout in the 2020 general election and runoffs, S.B. 202 doubles down on making voting even more inaccessible for the disability community.

The law was debated and passed by both houses of the Georgia Legislature and signed by Governor Brian Kemp, all in under seven hours. The legislation was passed despite state officials praising the recent elections for their integrity, safety, and security. The lawsuit describes how the law violates voter protections under the 14th and 15th Amendments as well as Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The plaintiffs represented in the case include organizations whose get-out-the-vote activities will be negatively impacted by SB 202 and people most directly affected, such as Black voters, new citizens, religious communities, and people with limited English proficiency.

Case Documents

First Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs Opposition to State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Motion for Preliminary Injunction on ADA Claims

Declarations in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction on ADA Claims

Expert Report of Dr. Lisa A. Schur

Plaintiffs Reply Brief on Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on ADA Claims

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Additional Provisions

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Jurisdiction

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Absentee Ballot Claims

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Drop Box Provisions

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Changes in Timing

Statement of Interest of the United States

Case Resources

Southern Poverty Law Center Case Page

Southern Poverty Law Center: Nonprofit that helps people with disabilities cast ballots joins SPLC suit against voter suppression law

Webinar: “Battle for Representation: A Fight to Protect and Expand Access to the Ballot” | Webinar Transcript 

Press Releases

Georgia-based Disability Rights Groups Join Fight Against Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law S.B. 202

Federal Court Allows Lawsuit Challenging Georgia’s Voter Suppression Law to Proceed

Voting and Civil Rights Groups Challenge Inequity in Access to Voting Under Georgia Law

Related Media

Huffington Post: Disability Rights Groups Join Lawsuit Over Georgia Voter Suppression Law

Blackstar News: Disability Rights Groups Join Fight Against Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law S.B. 202

New York Times: G.O.P. Bills Rattle Disabled Voters: ‘We Don’t Have a Voice Anymore’

2021 Talks: Disability advocates fight Georgia’s new voting law

Newsweek: Trump-Appointed Judge Says 8 Lawsuits Challenging Georgia’s New Election Law Can Proceed

The Hill: Judge clears way for legal challenge to Georgia’s restrictive voting law 

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Judge denies attempts to dismiss lawsuits over Georgia voting law

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

The Arc Georgia’s Grassroots Connectors (Video)

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

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

Southern Poverty Law Center: Voting Rights Organizations Move to Block Provisions in Georgia’s Anti-Voter Law in 2022 Election Cycle 

Time: Millions of Georgians Have Voted. It Hasn’t Been Easy for Everyone

ACLU: Here’s How Georgia’s New Voting Law Harms Voters With Disabilities

The Arc Maryland v. Baltimore City et al

State: Maryland

Filed: 2021

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

Plaintiff: The Arc Maryland

Defendants: Baltimore City, Queen Anne’s County, Carroll County, Garrett County, Somerset County, Talbot County

Counsel: The Arc, Disability Rights Maryland, Brown & Barron LLC

Overview: The Arc Maryland filed a federal lawsuit alleging that six jurisdictions in Maryland, including Baltimore City, discriminate against people with IDD by denying them opportunities to access COVID-19 vaccinations inconsistent with the State’s Executive order and Vaccination Plan. This discrimination puts lives at stake and violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

While vaccination sites must offer vaccines to the public in accordance with Maryland’s state vaccination plan, the five counties and Baltimore City exclude individuals with IDD in their list of who is eligible, preventing those with IDD from accessing vaccinations.

It is well established that COVID-19-related fatality rates among people with IDD who test positive for COVID-19 are nearly three times greater than the mortality rates among the general population who are positive for the virus. People with IDD also face heightened risk because many rely on caregivers or direct support professionals who provide assistance with activities of daily living, for which social distancing is often not possible. Frequently, such caregivers serve multiple people raising risks of transmission. Despite advocacy from The Arc Maryland, people with IDD are not getting equal access to vaccines, compelling the need for the lawsuit.

Case Documents

Complaint

Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order

Related Media

Press Release: Vaccine Discrimination: Disability Advocacy Groups File Federal Lawsuit Alleging 6 Maryland Jurisdictions Discriminate in Vaccine Process

Baltimore Sun: Maryland organization that supports people with disabilities sues five counties and Baltimore City, alleging vaccine discrimination

The Maryland Daily Record: 6 Md. jurisdictions sued over vaccine eligibility for people with disabilities

The Garrett County Republican: Garrett County sued over vaccine info for people with disabilities

The Cumberland Times-News: Organization alleges vaccine discrimination

National Journal: Disability communities face barriers to COVID-19 vaccines

Baltimore Sun: Maryland disability rights group dismisses lawsuit against Baltimore City and three of five counties for alleged vaccine discrimination

Student A. v. SFUSD

State: California

Filed: November 9, 2020

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: Amicus brief explaining why exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required in systemic special education class action.

Excerpt: “Neither party disputed that SFUSD special education students lag far behind their non-disabled peers in educational achievement and graduation rates. Studies confirm that with effective and timely intervention, these students can be highly successful. But individual families cannot secure corrective measures on their own, especially for students without access to legal representation. And Plaintiffs are unlikely to successfully exhaust so as to file another systemic action because SFUSD can moot out any individual administrative appeal.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Town Hall: The Arc’s Response to COVID-19 and Plans for the Future

We are in the midst of a global health pandemic that is wreaking havoc on all of our lives and has been particularly devastating for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and their families. While we battle COVID-19, we must also plan for the future and the challenges ahead. In the wake of this health emergency and economic crisis, we need to organize and advocate more than ever before. The human rights of people with IDD and the supports and services they need to both live in and be valued members of their communities are at stake.

This Town Hall delves into The Arc’s response to the pandemic, the progress we’ve made, and the threats that remain. We also unveiled the new Strategic Framework for the Future of The Arc¸ a dynamic plan to build a more powerful, nationwide disability community movement.

View Town Hall Presentation Slides here.

View a transcript of the discussion here. 

National Stakeholder Survey Results

How was our new Strategic Framework for the Future of The Arc created? To gather input, we engaged in a two-year participatory process to seek input from a variety of constituents. To understand how we arrived at our new Strategic Framework for the Future of The Arc, we want to share a summary of the insights gained from our stakeholder survey.

Strategic Framework for the Future of The Arc

What does true inclusion and equity look like for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities?

As we look to the future of disability rights, The Arc is excited to meet this question head on with our new Strategic Framework for the Future of The Arc.

This document is also available in plain language and Spanish.

This framework is intended to be a guiding light for our work across the local, state, and national levels. It is the result of an exhaustive, two-year process—culminating in the middle of a global pandemic and human rights reckoning that will shape our advocacy for years to come.

Now more than ever, The Arc must do its part to strategically build the disability rights movement into a more diverse and powerful force for change. We are proud to present our Strategic Framework for the Future of The Arc, which will guide us along this journey.