The Arc of Delaware v. Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association, Inc.

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Delaware

Filed: 2015

Agencies: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Delaware Division of Human Relations

Complainant: The Arc Delaware

Respondent: Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association, Inc.

Counsel: Relman Dane & Colfax, The Arc, Community Legal Aid Society, Inc.

Overview: The Arc Delaware filed a complaint in 2015 with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Delaware Division of Human Relations (DHR) seeking a declaration that Sugar Maple Farms Property Owners’ Association (SMFPOA) violated the Fair Housing Act when it refused to approve The Arc of Delaware’s acquisition of property meant to house four individuals with IDD in a single family home integrated within the community. The complaint sought damages to compensate for the loss of housing opportunities and for violations of the federal and Delaware Fair Housing Acts due to disability discrimination.

In 2014, The Arc Delaware’s executive director had submitted a bid on behalf of the organization for a lot owned by SMFPOA. The Arc Delaware intended to build a single family house in a residential subdivision with 65 other lots. His offer was accepted by the seller contingent on SMFPOA’s approval of the sale. However, once SMFPOA learned that residents with IDD would be living there, it told the executive director that such use was barred by its covenants and also expressed concerns about the amount of parking that would be required by the residents’ support staff.
The executive director tried to explain that The Arc of Delaware’s use was protected by the Fair Housing Act and offered to accommodate the extra parking needs while maintaining a uniform appearance within the community. He also offered to give SMFPOA members a tour of a similar home in the area in order to allay any concerns about daily operations. Shortly thereafter, The Arc Delaware received a letter from SMFPOA reiterating its position that the sale was not approved because it would violate SMFPOA’s covenants and suggesting that allowing people with IDD into the community would reduce property values and disturb the “quiet enjoyment” of neighbors. The loss of the property and subsequent delay in state funding deprived The Arc Delaware and its clients of at least four community-based housing opportunities.

The complaint filed with HUD noted that the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) makes it unlawful to “make unavailable or deny” a dwelling because of disability as well as to refuse to make “reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling.” Federal courts have consistently held that community supported housing for unrelated individuals with IDD does not constitute a “business” and does not violate “single family” restrictions, and Delaware law expressly recognizes such housing as “single family” properties for zoning purposes. Further, the courts recognize that most discriminatory remarks are made in coded language, such as the need to “maintain property value.”

Once the complaint had been filed, DHR performed an investigation and issued a finding of discrimination in 2016. S

Status: In 2016, following the finding of discrimination, the parties agreed to settle the case and entered into a Conciliation Agreement with DHR, HUD, and The Arc of Delaware. Among other things, the Conciliation Agreement requires SMFPOA to: 1) Apply the same terms and conditions of rental to anyone occupying its properties without regard to disability or any other protected class; 2) Provide written compliance reports to DHR and/or HUD when requested; 3) Allow HUD and DHR to inspect the premises at any time within one year of the agreement; 4) Notify its members and residents in writing of rules, policies, and practices relating to its non-discrimination policy and to prominently display the Equal Housing Opportunity logo within any relevant advertisements it distributes; 5) Ensure that all of its current board members receive comprehensive training on the Fair Housing Act within 90 days of signing the agreement and that all future board members receive such training within 30 days of their election; 6) Pay The Arc Delaware $55,000 in damages, including attorneys’ fees and costs.

Case Documents

Complaint

Conciliation Agreement

Related Media

Press Release: “The Arc of Delaware Reaches Fair Housing Settlement“

Seth v. District of Columbia

/in , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: District of Columbia

Filed: 2018

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

Plaintiffs: Mr. Seth

Defendants: District of Columbia, District of Columbia Department on Disability Services

Counsel: The Arc, Brown Goldstein & Levy, Robert Dinerstein, Skadden Arps

Overview: This lawsuit challenges the indefinite incarceration of Mr. Seth, a young man with intellectual disability languishing in federal prison despite not having been convicted of a crime in violation of his right under state and federal law to receive services and treatment in the most integrated setting appropriate to his needs. Mr. Seth, after having been found by the court to be incompetent to stand trial, has been held in federal prison rather than a community-based program in D.C., where he is from and where his family and support system reside. Despite the fact that the District’s Department on Disability Services’ experts concluded that Mr. Seth could be safely served in the community, the District has refused to provide such services to Mr. Seth in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the D.C. Human Rights Act. Because of the District’s inaction, Mr. Seth has been left to languish in federal prison for years, frequently placed in solitary confinement.

Case Documents

Complaint

Proposed Amended Complaint

D.C. Circuit Appellate Brief

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Local D.C. Advocacy Organizations

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Experts in Disability Services

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: Former Correctional Officials

D.C. Circuit Amicus Brief: National Disability Organizations

Related Media

Courthouse News Service: DC Disability Agency Accused of Ignoring Plight of Imprisoned Man

Building Inclusive Communities in Seattle: Involving All Neighbors

/in , , , , /by The Arc

“What does the Department of Neighborhoods do to encourage persons with developmental disabilities to get involved in neighborhood life?” That question prompted the beginning of a program called Involving All Neighbors in Seattle, Washington. The program was used to explore different ways people could be welcomed and involved in their neighbourhood. This series of stories and strategies from Seattle emerge from that program and describe examples of people with disability becoming involved in the life of the community to the benefit of all. The stories are likely to be helpful for families who are seeking ideas about how their son or daughter could be included, for families wanting to provide guidance and ideas for those working to support their son or daughter and for professionals who are keen to support people with disability develop skills and pursue interests.

National Inclusion Project

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

The National Inclusion Project operates on three core beliefs works with community organizations and recreational programs, providing them with the training, tools, and support they need so that children with disabilities can be included in all activities and programs.

Best Buddies International

/in , , , , , , /by The Arc

Best Buddies is the world’s largest organization dedicated to ending the social, physical, and economic isolation of the 200 million people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD). Best Buddies helpe people with IDD form meaningful friendships with their peers, secure successful jobs, live independently, improve public speaking, self-advocacy and communication skills, and feel valued by society.

Brown v. D.C.

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: District of Columbia

Filed: 2018

Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Overview: The brief supported a class of plaintiffs with physical disabilities seeking transition services from institutional to community-based living in D.C. The brief argued that transition services are vital to realize the promise of the ADA and that courts around the country have imposed binding obligations for effective transition services for people with disabilities and monitoring compliance for actual improvement.

Excerpt: “The ADA culminated decades of effort to end the discrimination faced by more than 54,000,000 Americans with disabilities. The Act mandates that people with disabilities have equal access to the basic institutions of government and participation in society. 2 And yet, even with housing and community service providers offering improved access to the community, the goals of the ADA remain elusive without effective transition services guiding individuals out of institutional settings and into their communities.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Brown v. D.C.

A.R. v. Dudek

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Florida

Filed: 2017

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

Overview: The brief challenged the policies of the state of Florida that resulted in unnecessary separation of children with disabilities from their families and unnecessary institutionalization in nursing facilities. The brief emphasized the importance of class action litigation to enforce the right of people with disabilities to live and receive services in community settings, consistent with the ADA’s integration mandate and explained the importance of community living for people with disabilities and the importance of children growing up in their family home.

Excerpt: “Class actions are uniquely appropriate for litigating Olmstead cases because…they focus on systemic practices and policies that violate the ADA’s integration mandate. By their nature, Olmstead cases challenge policies or practices that unduly rely on institutions and other segregated settings for the delivery of services, denying people with disabilities the opportunity to live, work, or be educated in a community-based setting.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: A.R. v. Dudek

Eleventh Circuit Opinion:

Ball v. Kasich

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Ohio

Filed: 2017

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio

Overview: The brief supported plaintiffs in Ohio seeking appropriate services in the most integrated setting in the community challenging the state’s practice of providing immediate placement in institutions for those seeking state-funded services, but taking 13 years or more to provide community-based services. The brief argued for certification of the class and outlined research demonstrating that states have successfully shifted from institutional placements to person-centered, community-based services even for those with the most significant disabilities and complex medical needs.

Excerpt: “Similar to other states that have successfully shifted their funding scheme to favor community-based options rather than institutional placements, the changes sought to Ohio’s system for the provision of community-based services and supports to individuals with IDD are both readily achievable and critically important. Such structural and systemic changes, however, simply cannot be achieved through individual lawsuits. As Plaintiffs note, Ohio’s institutional footprint is one of the largest in the United States. In 2013, more than 22,000 Ohioans with immediate needs were on waiting lists for community-based services at the time, with a median wait time of over 13 years. These numbers are unacceptably high and reflect a systemic problem that cannot adequately be addressed through individual litigation. Systemic relief is needed to ensure that proposed class members have sufficient access to a process that will allow informed choices…and lead to integrated, community-based residential, employment, and other services for those seeking such options. Without a class, such relief will not be achievable.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief

S.D. Ohio Opinion

Related Media

Disability Rights Ohio Press Release: “The Arc of Ohio, The Arc of the United States and the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Support Community Integration Class Action Suit”

A.R. v. Secretary

/in , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: Florida

Filed: October 25, 2017

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

Overview: The brief argued that, in a case challenging the state of Florida’s practice of unnecessarily serving hundreds of children with disabilities and complex medical needs in institutional settings, the U.S. Attorney General has standing to sue under Title II of the ADA. The brief noted that all branches of government have recognized since the ADA’s enactment that the Attorney General has authority to bring an enforcement action and this authority has been used to achieve important victories for people with disabilities.

Excerpt: “For decades, courts have recognized the Attorney General’s authority to enforce Title II of the ADA…In light of the text and purpose of the ADA, the longstanding DOJ regulations establishing the enforcement procedures for Title II, and the unanimity of all other cases decided to the contrary, the District Court’s decision was clearly erroneous. If permitted to stand, this decision will undermine the significant role the Attorney General has traditionally played in the enforcement of the ADA. The enforcement authority of the Attorney General significantly benefits individuals with disabilities, both because of the broad standing the Attorney General has to pursue systemic relief and because of the financial barriers to private litigation. The District Court’s decision would impede the progress the country has made toward the goal of “assur[ing] equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency” for individuals with disabilities…”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: A.R. v. Secretary

Decision

 

People v. McCollum

/in , , , , , , , , /by The Arc

State: New York

Filed: December 20, 2018

Court: Supreme Court of the State of New York

Overview: The brief supported Darius McCollum, an adult with autism charged with unauthorized driving of city trains and buses. In an unprecedented decision, the lower court found that, based on his autism diagnosis, Darius met the criteria for a “dangerous mental disorder” and committed him to a psychiatric institution for the most violent offenders despite him never having committed a violent crime. The brief argued that this placement is wholly inappropriate for someone like Darius, who could thrive in the community with appropriate supports and services.

Excerpt: “The principle of community integration…enshrined in the Americans with Disabilities Act…requires public entities to avoid needless institutionalization of individuals with disabilities who can be served in community settings. Decades of research and experience compel the conclusion that community-based services deliver better outcomes for individuals who do not require institutionalization, and better serve the purpose of [state law] to balance individual rights and public safety.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: People v. McCollum