Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections

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

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.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Postawko v. Missouri Department of Corrections

Eighth Circuit Opinion

City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

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

State: California

Filed: 2015

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that a woman with mental illness who was shot five times by police at her group home while experiencing a mental health crisis could sue the city of San Francisco under Title II of the ADA for failure to provide her with reasonable accommodations in the process of arresting her.

Excerpt: “It is critical to the lives of persons with many types of disabilities that police departments adopt and implement policies and practices that take disability into account during police interactions. Approximately half of all fatal police interactions involve persons with psychiatric disabilities…Title II of the ADA requires nondiscrimination and reasonable modifications (also known as reasonable accommodations) in policing activities, including in the type of detention at the heart of this case. In the context of a person with a known psychiatric disability, who is in crisis and subject to involuntary mental health treatment, the ADA requires that police employ widely accepted policing practices that use containment, coordination, communication, and time to seek safe resolutions.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell

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

State: Connecticut

Filed: 2017

Court: Supreme Court of Connecticut

Overview: The brief argued that the requirement that the state adopt standards that focus its special education efforts on students “who can profit from some form of elementary and secondary education,” rather than “spend fruitlessly on some at the expense of others,” violates the IDEA, which mandates that all students with disabilities be provided a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. The brief focused on research demonstrating that even students with the most severe disabilities can learn and often exceed expectations, the legislative history of the IDEA making clear that all students with disabilities are guaranteed the right to an education, and the fact that failure to educate these students violates the ADA’s integration mandate which has been vital in ensuring that people with disabilities have access to opportunities that allow them to live in the community, learn in general education settings, obtain post-secondary education, and work in integrated jobs at competitive wages.

Excerpt: “The IDEA’s mandate that schools must educate all students with disabilities extends to children with an array of cognitive, physical, sensory, health, and alertness disabilities – those known as having a ‘profound’ disability because they have variable patterns of reflexive movements, minimal or inconsistent responses to stimuli, small response repertories, few voluntary behaviors, and/or variability in alertness and orienting. The obligation extends to these students because they are able to benefit from education, including education in the general curriculum; they are able to master functional and academic skills; they are able to learn and make progress in academic, functional, and developmental domains; and they are able to do so when educated with children without disabilities. Indeed, the science of educability does not justify educators, or any other persons, in assuming that a student’s current cognitive or communicative skills are fixed or absolute and thus represent the highest level of the student’s capacity.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding, Inc. v. Rell

CT Supreme Court Opinion

Related Media

Press Release: “The Arc Responds to Connecticut Court Ruling on Education and Access for Children with Disabilities”

The Arc Blog: “Good Outcome in Connecticut School Funding Case”

Hartford Courant: “Parents Of Special Needs Children Join Appeal Of Education Funding Decision”

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1

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

State: Colorado

Filed: 2016, 2017

Court: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

Overview: The brief before the U.S. Supreme Court argued that Congress’ move to standards-based education and the IDEA amendments make the Tenth Circuit Court’s bare-bones “merely more than de-minimis” standard for educational benefit untenable. The brief—in support of Drew, a child with autism who was not making progress under his IEP—argued that the IDEA requires school districts to provide students with disabilities an equal opportunity to meet the standards the district applies to all children and that any deviation from that universal standard must be tied to the unique needs of each child. In 2017, the Court issued a unanimous decision definitively rejecting the “merely more than de minimis” standard and holding that the “IDEA demands more.” In 2017, another amicus brief before the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado asked the court to find that the IEP at issue was not “appropriately ambitious” in light of the “markedly more demanding” standard outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Excerpt: “In the years since Rowley, Congress has not been silent. To the contrary, it has repeatedly amended the IDEA. Where the Rowley Court found that Congress had not adopted language providing a ‘substantive standard prescribing the level of education to be accorded handicapped children,’ the post-Rowley amendments have progressively expanded States’ substantive obligations under the statute. These amendments make clear that a school district’s educational interventions must provide a child with a disability an equal opportunity to meet the standards the district applies to all children. Any deviation from that universal standard must be tied to the unique needs of the child. The Tenth Circuit’s merely-more-than-de-minimis test therefore falls far short of the requirements that Congress has imposed since Rowley.”

Status: In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado held that the school district did not provide an adequate education and must reimburse the family for private school tuition, noting that the IEP “was not appropriately ambitious” under the new standard articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court since it did not provide the plaintiff with a chance “to meet challenging objectives under his particular circumstances.”

Case Documents

U.S. Supreme Court Brief

U.S. Supreme Court Opinion

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Brief

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Opinion

Related Media

The Arc Blog, “The Arc Applauds U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Special Education Case: ‘The IDEA Demands More’”

New York Times, “Supreme Court Rejects Education Minimum Applied by Gorsuch”

In the Matter of Lacee L.

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

State: New York

Filed: 2018

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability who had her child removed from her care without receiving appropriate accommodations from the state’s child welfare agency that would have allowed her an equal chance to parent effectively. The brief argued that the court must recognize the important role that the family and appellate courts have in enforcing the rights of parents with intellectual disability to receive the supports and accommodations they need to preserve and reunify their families. The brief also provided background on the meaning of an intellectual disability diagnosis, the long history of discrimination against parents with intellectual disability, and the social science and personal stories that show how people with intellectual disability can flourish as parents when provided the supports and services they need to thrive.

Excerpt: “Individuals with intellectual disability can learn how to parent, improve their parenting skills, and parent successfully with appropriate support. Robust enforcement of the reasonable accommodations requirement of the ADA is essential to guaranteeing that they have an equal opportunity to do so.”

Status: In 2018, the Court found that the child welfare agency had met the reasonable efforts requirement and provided all accommodations required. However, on the broader issue of the applicability of the ADA to the proceedings, the Court did state: “An agency, like ACS, that is subject to Title II of the ADA must make ‘reasonable accommodations’ to allow ‘meaningful access’ to government services…To be sure, ACS must comply with the ADA.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In the Matter of Lacee L.

New York Court of Appeals Opinion

In Re Elijah C.

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

State: Connecticut

Filed: 2016

Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability and schizophrenia whose parental rights were terminated by the state’s child welfare agency, despite the agency failing to provide necessary accommodations to the mother throughout the process. The brief argued that termination of parental rights and neglect proceedings are “programs, services, and activities” that must comply with Title II of the ADA.

Excerpt: “Parents with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities face profound challenges when their government accuses them of unfitness. Though nine decades have passed since Justice Holmes upheld the forced sterilization of “mental defectives”…we are not so far removed from Holmes’ bias: Ten states still permit the involuntary sterilization of persons with disabilities; some in language that echoes Holmes’ disdain for its subjects. In Connecticut, parents with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities confront more than just a legacy of discrimination: They also contend with a know-it-when-you-see-it reunification standard and case law that forbids consideration of the ADA. Holding that compliance with the ADA is mandatory in termination and neglect proceedings will remove these two barriers to fair and accurate assessment of the parental fitness of persons with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities.”

Status: In 2017, the Court held that the mother was unable to benefit from reunification efforts. The Court further held that “it is the law of this state that child welfare proceedings are subject to the provisions of the ADA insofar as they involve the services, programs, or activities of any stage agency…the department’s failure to make reasonable modifications to its services, programs or activities to accommodate a parent’s disability would likely preclude a finding…that the department’s reunification efforts were reasonable under the circumstances…We therefore continue to encourage trial courts to look to the ADA for guidance in fashioning appropriate services for parents with disabilities.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In Re Elijah C.

Connecticut Supreme Court Opinion

In Re Hicks/Brown

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

State: Michigan

Filed: 2016

Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability arguing that the state failed in its statutory duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family unit because the case service plan never included reasonable accommodations to provide her with a meaningful opportunity to benefit, as required by the ADA.

Excerpt: “The Court of Appeals in this case reached the correct conclusion: when a state agency fails to provide reasonable accommodations to a parent with disabilities in a case service plan, the agency fails in its statutory duty to make reasonable efforts to reunify the family. When this happens, the state simply cannot satisfy the high burden (i.e., clear and convincing evidence) required to take the drastic measure of terminating parental rights. Failing to provide a parent with disabilities with an appropriate case service plan necessarily leaves a ‘hole’ in the evidence that prohibits a court from finding that the requisite grounds for termination have been satisfied. How can a trier of fact find evidence so clear and weighty to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, that a person with disabilities cannot remedy the grounds leading to adjudication or otherwise provide proper care for his or her child when the parent was never given the appropriate reasonable accommodations? The answer is, as the Court of Appeals held, that they cannot. The American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Michigan Probate Code, as well as common sense, dictate such a ruling.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In Re Hicks/Brown

Supreme Court of Michigan Opinion

In the Matter of Michael A.

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

State: New York

Filed: 2017

Court: New York Supreme Court

Overview: The brief supported a mother with intellectual disability arguing that the state’s child welfare agency had failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify her with her son in violation of Title II of the ADA.

Excerpt: “While much research exists demonstrating the ability of individuals with intellectual disability to parent with needed supports, parents with intellectual disability…remain an especially vulnerable population given pervasive and harmful stereotypes of people with disabilities. Their abilities are frequently underestimated, and they remain subject to the outdated notion that, by reason of their disabilities alone, they are simply incapable of parenting. Without proper enforcement of the ADA, these vulnerable parents have no recourse or remedy should [the child welfare agency] deny them equal access to the services, programs, or activities that they and their families require to reunite or to remain together.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: In the Matter of Michael A.

Ivy v. Morath

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

State: Texas

Filed: 2016

Court: U.S. Supreme Court

Overview: The brief argued that Title II of the ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination in public “services, programs, or activities” and state and local governments may not evade Title II obligations by enlisting private entities to perform them. States and other public entities routinely rely on private entities to provide services, programs, or activities, such as operating schools, providing employment training, providing community and long-term housing and care services to people with disabilities, operating prisons, providing transportation, and more. Many of the areas in which states involve private entities to provide public services, programs, and activities are critical to ensuring that people with disabilities are able to live independently within the community, receive educational and employment opportunities, and not be denied access to basic government services and benefits.

Excerpt: “When the state administers a program of issuing an important public benefit – here, a driver’s license – by conditioning that benefit on participation in a service or program operated by a private entity, it has a Title II obligation to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from the program and thus the benefit…[S]tates have experimented with a variety of arrangements to deliver public services and carry out public programs and activities through private entities. When the states’ administration, policies, directives, or actions lead to or allow disability-based discrimination in those public services, programs, and activities, the plain text of the statute holds the ‘public entity’ responsible. And the regulations…make clear that a public entity’s obligations extend not just to those services and benefits it provides ‘directly,’ nor even just to programs, services, or activities operated by private entities ‘through contractual . . . arrangements’ with the state, but also to state programs, services, and activities that enlist private entities through ‘licensing, or other arrangements.’

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: Ivy v. Morath

M.W. v. Army

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

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.”

Case Documents

Amicus Brief: M.W. v. Army