Special Olympics provides year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy, and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills, and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes, and the community.
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.
State: Maryland
Filed: 2016
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Overview: The brief challenged a series of failures in the Social Security Administration’s notification and review process, including lack of adequate notice of overpayments, a practice of collecting overpayments from those other than the actual recipients of Social Security benefit payments, and failure to provide explanation or evidence supporting the alleged overpayments. The brief argued that SSA should not be permitted to moot claims by unilateral action, thus avoiding judicial inquiry into their ongoing policies and practices and emphasizes the importance of class actions in these cases.
Excerpt: “[T]he challenges of accessing SSA’s appeal procedures can be compounded for beneficiaries with disabilities…Beneficiaries with intellectual disability can have difficulty handling the complex administrative, legal, and financial issues involved in accessing SSA appeal and waiver procedures, which are challenging for people without disabilities.”
Status: In 2017, plaintiffs stipulated to dismiss their appeal and vacate the district court opinion in light of positive steps taken by SSA to address the barriers described above.
Amicus Brief: Hart v. Berryhill (Colvin)
State: California
Filed: 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Overview: The brief supported children with diabetes and the American Diabetes Association arguing that the U.S. Army’s childcare program discriminates against children who need insulin treatment for diabetes, thereby effectively excluding children with diabetes from its childcare programs. The brief also argued for a broad view of organizational standing as essential to disability civil rights cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Excerpt: “Congress has enacted broad statutes to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities. This statutory scheme relies heavily on rigorous private enforcement, and both the Supreme Court and this Court have emphasized that district courts must, consistent with Article III, take a broad view of standing in civil rights cases. The district court failed to properly apply this teaching, and its order should be reversed.”
Amicus Brief: M.W. v. Army
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.”
Amicus Brief: Brown v. D.C.
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.”
Amicus Brief: A.R. v. Dudek
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.”
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”
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…”
Amicus Brief: A.R. v. Secretary
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.”
State: Missouri
Filed: 2018
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Overview: The brief supported a class of Missouri prisoners seeking life-saving medical treatment while in prison and alleging that the state’s Department of Corrections refused to treat thousands of inmates with Hepatitis C in defiance of medical standards and in violation of the ADA. The brief argued for the importance of class action lawsuits as a tool for civil rights enforcement.
Excerpt: “An unlawful policy or practice will always cause differing degrees of actual injury to individual class members, depending on their vulnerabilities, and some may be lucky enough to escape harm altogether. One foster child will be placed in a family rife with abuse and another with loving foster parents; one person will have disabilities that necessitate 24-hour support while another is able to live independently; one immigrant in detention will suffer lasting health consequences without regular medication and monitoring while her cellmate will stay healthy. If such variations were sufficient to defeat class certification, system-wide relief from illegal policies and practices would almost always be out of reach, and shifting populations in the custody of the government would have lost a vital tool for vindicating their rights.”
Amicus Brief: Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections
Will you pledge to vote this November?
