Civil rights Archives - Page 5 of 11

HHS-OCR Complaints Re COVID-19 Medical Discrimination

March 23, 2020/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Legal Professionals Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Distric of Columbia, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington Civil rights, Health Care Litigation/by Pam Katz

States: Washington, Alabama, Tennessee, Utah, Oklahoma, Connecticut, North Carolina, Oregon, Nebraska, Arizona, DC, Texas

Date Filed: 2020

Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights

Overview: These complaints concern illegal disability discrimination in medical care that is putting the lives of people with disabilities at imminent risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaints challenge discriminatory crisis standard of care plans, no-visitor policies, and inaccessible testing that violate federal disability rights laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Doe v. Trump

February 7, 2020/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals Oregon Civil rights, Health Care Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: Oregon

Filed: February 6, 2020

Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: This brief supports the preliminary injunction of the Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry of Immigrants Who Will Financially Burden the United States Healthcare System as discriminatory against people with disabilities. The brief argues that the Proclamation attempts to replace the multi-factor public charge test provided by Congress with a single-factor test based exclusively on whether a visa applicant has “approved” health insurance to determine if they will be a “financial burden.”

Excerpt: “The Proclamation would re-impose these discriminatory barriers, requiring immigrants to provide proof of health insurance coverage through ‘approved’ plans that are not accessible for most people with disabilities due to medical underwriting, pre-existing condition exclusions, and other requirements. The purported goal of the Proclamation is to reduce the costs of uncompensated care, yet it excludes health insurance options available to individuals with disabilities that have been shown to reduce these costs, including subsidized Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) marketplace health plans and Medicaid. The Proclamation thus acts as a de facto bar to entry for immigrants with disabilities without any rational link to its alleged purpose.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

In the Matter of Marian T.

January 15, 2020/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals New York Civil rights Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: New York

Filed: December 31, 2019

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Overview: This brief argues that New York’s adoption statute requires the informed consent of adult adoptees. The lower court held that the consent of the adult adoptee is properly dispensed with where adoption would further the person’s best interests.

Excerpt: “In dispensing with Marian’s consent to her own adoption, the lower courts embraced the outdated-and discriminatory-view that adults with intellectual disability may be treated as perpetual children under the law. Despite changes in law, policy, and societal attitudes regarding the treatment of adults with intellectual disability, outmoded stereotypes of adults with intellectual disability as lacking personhood and the ability to exercise self-determination linger. The lower courts’ decisions reflect those outdated views and threaten a dangerous reversal of advances made by people with intellectual disability.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Cropp v. Larimer County

January 3, 2020/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Victim Services Professionals Colorado Civil rights, Criminal justice Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: Colorado

Filed: December 18, 2019

Court: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals

Overview: The amicus brief supported Mr. Cropp’s petition for a rehearing en banc. Mr. Cropp is an individual with Alzheimer’s who was arrested after police found him wandering in his neighborhood and tackled him to the ground when he would not answer their questions. His wife came to visit him in jail and asked for an accommodation to be able to sit next to him and explain the release form he was required to fill out in order to leave the jail. Despite knowledge of Mr. Cropp’s disability, the County denied these accommodation requests without making an individualized inquiry or analysis of his communications needs. The district court granted the County’s motion for summary judgement and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Excerpt: “The majority’s decision undermines the requirements of Title II in two ways…First, Title II requires that public entities provide communication with disabled people that is “as effective as” communication with nondisabled people. In contrast, the majority would require disabled people to show that communication offered by a public entity was ‘wholly ineffective.’ Second, Title II requires that governmental entities give “primary consideration” to the requests of disabled people in determining the appropriate method of communication with them.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

Community for Permanent Supported Housing et al. v. Housing Authority of the City of Dallas

October 10, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals Texas Civil rights, Housing Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: Texas

Filed: October 9, 2019

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Overview: The Arc filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ appeal of the district court’s dismissal on ripeness grounds. The case, filed in federal district court in the Northern District of Texas in 2018, challenges the Housing Authority of the City of Dallas’s (DHA) refusal to use the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Project-Based Voucher (PBV) rent subsidy program to provide otherwise scarce affordable, independent housing opportunities for people with IDD in the community. DHA was poised to offer such PBVs—each of which would permit a single-family house to be rented at subsidized rates to several people with IDD who can live independently with appropriate supports—but then canceled its offering and has refused to offer any substitute, without any good reason. The lawsuit alleges that DHA’s actions violate the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, and state law. The district court dismissed the case in April 2019 and Plaintiffs appealed to the Fifth Circuit. The amicus brief supports Plaintiffs’ request to reverse the district court’s dismissal order and let the case move forward and explains that DHA’s ongoing failure to provide access to its program (including through reasonable accommodations where necessary) deprives adults with IDD of a critical opportunity to live in the most integrated setting appropriate in the community and creates an acute risk of homelessness and institutionalization.

Excerpt: “Title II of the ADA requires public entities to administer programs in the ‘most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities,’ and Olmstead is noteworthy for its broad recognition of the rights of people with disabilities to live and receive needed services and supports in the community—as opposed to institutional settings—which has become known as the ‘integration mandate’ of the ADA. But this mandate—which also protects those who are “at risk” of institutionalization—cannot be fully realized without affordable housing opportunities in the community that are accessible to people with IDD and enable them to live outside their family homes. For many adults with IDD currently living in their family homes, opportunities that allow them to live in the community separate from their families are often preferable because these opportunities provide greater independence and autonomy. Additionally, living in the community separate from their families can be critical for adults with IDD to avoid homelessness or institutionalization when a supporting family member inevitably ages and reaches a point where she or he can no longer provide shelter or support.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Community for Permanent Supported Housing et al. v. Housing Authority of the City of Dallas

Public Charge Amicus Briefs

September 12, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Family member, Law Enforcement/First Responders/Corrections, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals California, Illinois, New York, Washington Civil rights Litigation/by Pam Katz

States: California, Washington, New York, Illinois

Filed: 2019

Courts: Northern District of California, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Washington, Northern District of Illinois

Overview: A coalition of national disability advocacy groups filed four amicus briefs in support of litigation to stop the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing its new “public charge” rule. Twenty-one states–led by California, Washington, and New York–as well as Cook County, Illinois, have filed cases against the Trump Administration to block the new rule. The advocacy groups – representing tens of thousands of people with disabilities and their families across the country – claim that the new public charge rule will prevent people with disabilities from entering this country or becoming legal residents in violation of federal disability law.

Case Documents

Decisions:

California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of California Opinion (granting preliminary injunction in plaintiff states but finding no specific disability discrimination)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (granted stay of nationwide injunction)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (affirming permanent injunction)

Cook County, IL v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Northern District of Illinois Opinion (granting preliminary injunction in Illinois and not directly addressing the disability discrimination claims)
U.S. Supreme Court Opinion (granted stay of statewide injunction)
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (upholding preliminary injunction during COVID-19)
Northern District of Illinois (granting summary judgment to plaintiffs and vacating final rule nationwide)

New York v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Southern District of New York Opinion (granting nationwide preliminary injunction and finding potential disability discrimination)
Second Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (denied stay of nationwide injunction)
U.S. Supreme Court Opinion (granted stay of nationwide injunction)

Washington v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Eastern District of Washington Opinion (granting nationwide preliminary injunction and finding likely disability discrimination)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (granted stay of nationwide injunction)
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion (affirming permanent injunction)

Press Release: Disability Advocacy Groups File Amicus Brief Opposing the Administration’s Public Charge Rule as Illegal Disability Discrimination

Press Release: Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Public Charge Rule: Implementation Will Have Chilling Impact on People with Disabilities

The Hill: Disability rights groups join challenge to ‘public charge’ rule

Undisclosed Podcast: State v. Rocky Myers – Episode 4: Of Mice and Men

August 30, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Law Enforcement/First Responders/Corrections, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Victim Services Professionals All States Civil rights, Criminal justice Litigation, Media/by Pam Katz

Through a review of Rocky Myers’ case in Alabama and a discussion with The Arc’s legal director, this episode explores the Supreme Court’s opinion in Atkins and later decisions holding that executing people with intellectual disability violates the constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Prisons as Institutions: An Overview of Challenges Facing Prisoners with IDD and Proposed Solutions Under the ADA and Other Disability Rights Laws (University of Minnesota Impact Magazine, 2017)

August 30, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Family member, Law Enforcement/First Responders/Corrections, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Service provider / DSP, Victim Services Professionals All States Civil rights, Criminal justice Media/by Pam Katz

Individuals with IDD are dramatically over-represented in prisons and jails and face unique barriers. Powerful laws exist to protect them, but prisoners need accessible resources to assist them in advocating for their rights. This article explores recommendations to ensure equity for prisoners with IDD.

Using the ADA’s ‘Integration Mandate’ to Disrupt Mass Incarceration (Denver Law Review, 2019)

August 20, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Criminal Justice Professionals, Family member, Law Enforcement/First Responders/Corrections, Legal Professionals, Nonprofit professionals, Service provider / DSP, Victim Services Professionals All States Civil rights, Community-based LTSS, Criminal justice Litigation/by Pam Katz

This document explores how advocates have used, and are beginning to use in new ways, the “integration mandate” of the Americans with Disabilities Act to advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities to avoid unnecessary entanglement with the criminal justice system.

G.T. v. Board of Education of the County of Kanawha

August 20, 2019/in Advocate, Chapter of The Arc, Legal Professionals West Virginia Civil rights, Education Litigation/by Pam Katz

State: West Virginia

Filed: 2020

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia

Plaintiffs: Parents of children with disabilities in Kanawha County Schools

Defendant: Kanawha County School District

Counsel: The Arc, Mountain State Justice, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Disability Rights West Virginia, Latham & Watkins

Overview: In 2020, The Arc, along with other local and national disability advocacy organizations filed a class action complaint in federal court alleging that Kanawha County Schools (KCS) has failed to educate children with disabilities, including autism, intellectual or developmental disabilities, mental health concerns, and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Specifically, the groups assert that KCS—the public school district serving the Charleston metro area—has failed to provide behavioral and academic supports to students with disabilities and is instead segregating them into separate schools and classrooms, or sending them home because KCS schools will not educate them. The advocates allege that KCS has violated federal laws protecting students with disabilities.

As described in the complaint, scores of children with disabilities enrolled in KCS have been separated unnecessarily from mainstream classrooms in their schools. Instead, the students are segregated for years in separate classrooms where they interact only with other students with disabilities, and receive an inferior education; placed on “homebound” status where they may only receive a few hours of tutoring each week; or suspended or even expelled from school for behaviors that are caused by their disabilities. The students are not receiving critical behavioral supports that can help them be successful in the general education classroom with their classmates without disabilities.

Specifically, the complaints allege that KCS is: 1) violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by failing to provide children with disabilities with the special education they need to receive a “free appropriate public education” in the least restrictive environment; and 2) violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the West Virginia Human Rights Act by failing to educate children with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, and denying them equal educational opportunity.