ADA.gov United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
Information and Technical Assistance on the Americans with Disabilities Act
2010 Regulations
2010 Design Standards
Technical Assistance Materials
Enforcement

Olmstead Home Page

About Olmstead

DOJ Olmstead Technical Assistance

DOJ Olmstead Enforcement by Circuit Court

DOJ Olmstead Enforcement by Case or Matter

DOJ Olmstead Enforcement by Issue

Olmstead Press, Speeches & Testimony

Filing an Olmstead Complaint

Faces of Olmstead

red envelop image Sign Up for E-mail Updates
Receive notifications by E-mail when new Olmstead litigation information is available.

For the Department of Justice, turning the promise of the Olmstead decision into a reality for individuals with disabilities across the nation has become a major component of ADA enforcement.

Olmstead: Community Integration for Everyone

Olmstead Cases by Circuit Court of Appeals

(1st Circuit)
ME, MA, NH, PR, RI
(2nd Circuit)
CT, NY, VT
(3rd Circuit)
DE, NJ, PA
(4th Circuit)
MD, NC, SC, VA, WV
(5th Circuit)
LA, MS, TX
(6th Circuit)
KY, MI, OH, TN
(7th Circuit)
IL, IN, WI
(8th Circuit)
AR, IA, MN, MO, NE, ND, SD
(9th Circuit)
AK, AZ, CA, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA
(10th Circuit)
CO, KS, NM, OK, UT, WY
(11th Circuit)
AL, FL, GA
(DC Circuit)
DC

1st Circuit - Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island

U.S. v. Rhode Island – 1:14-cv-00175 – (D.R.I. 2014)
On April 8, 2014, the United States entered into the nation’s first statewide settlement agreement vindicating the civil rights of individuals with disabilitieswho are unnecessarily segregated in sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs.  The settlement agreement with the State of Rhode Island resolves the Civil Rights Division’s January 6, 2014 findings, as part of an ADA Olmstead investigation, that the State’s day activity service system over-relies on segregated settings, including sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs, to the exclusion of integrated alternatives, such as supported employment and integrated day services. Read More

U.S. v. Rhode Island and City of Providence 1:13-cv-00442, (D.R.I. 2013)
On June 13, 2013, the United States entered a court-enforceable interim settlement agreement with the State of Rhode Island and the City of Providence which resolved the Civil Rights Division's findings, as part of an ADA Olmstead investigation, that the State and City have unnecessarily segregated individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) in a sheltered workshop and segregated day activity service program, and have placed public school students with I/DD at risk of unnecessary segregation in that same program. Read more

Amanda D. v. Wood Hassan, 1:12-CV-53-LM (D. N.H. 2012) (formerly Lynn E. v. Lynch)
The Justice Department intervened in Amanda D. v. Wood Hassan, a lawsuit alleging that the state of New Hampshire fails to provide mental health services to people with disabilities in community settings in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Read more

2nd Circuit - Connecticut, New York, Vermont

United States v. State of New York – 13-cv-4165 – (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
On July 23, 2013, the United States, individual plaintiffs, and the State of New York filed a settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.  The agreement is subject to the court's approval.  The agreement remedies discrimination by the State in the administration of its mental health service system and ensures that individuals with mental illness who reside in 23 large adult homes in New York City receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs consistent with the ADA and Olmstead.  Under the agreement, such individuals will have the opportunity to live and receive services in the community such that they are able to live, work, and participate fully in community life. Read More

Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy v. State of Connecticut3:06-CV-179 – (D. CT 2006) - The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit challenge the State of Connecticut's reliance on privately-run, segregated nursing facilities to serve the needs of individuals with mental illness who would be more appropriately served in community-based settings. Read more

3rd Circuit - Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania

Smith v. Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – 2:13-cv-05670 - On June 12, 2014, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in the case of Smith v. Department of Public Welfare of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  In Smith, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania put them at serious risk of institutionalization by reducing funding for Act 150, a state-funded program providing attendant care services in the community. Read More

U.S. v. Delaware 11-CV-591 - On July 6, 2011 the Division filed in District Court a Complaint and a simultaneous Settlement Agreement resolving its ADA Olmstead investigation into whether persons with mental illness in Delaware are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and its CRIPA investigation into conditions of confinement at Delaware Psychiatric Center. Read more

Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez – 05-CV-4723 – (D. NJ 2005) - Hundreds of persons with developmental disabilities residing in several large State-owned-and–operated institutions in New Jersey brought this suit, alleging that the State fails to provide themwith services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Read more

Benjamin et al. v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare – 09-CV-1182 – (M.D. PA) - In July 2010, the United States filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in this class action.  We supported  the arguments made by a class of individuals with developmental disabilities who sought to end their unjustified segregation in Pennsylvania’s large, publicly-run congregate care institutions. Read more

4th Circuit - Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia

U.S. v. North Carolina, No. 5:12-cv-557 (E.D.N.C. 2012)
On August 23, 2012, the United States entered a comprehensive, eight-year settlement agreement with the State of North Carolina resolving the Civil Rights Division's ADA Olmstead investigation of the State's mental health service system, which currently serves thousands of individuals with mental illness in large adult care homes.  The Agreement will expand access to community-based supported housing – integrated housing that promotes inclusion and independence and enables individuals with mental illness to participate fully in community life.  Read more

U.S. v. Virginia - 3:12CV059 (E.D. VA 2012) - On January 26, 2012, the Division filed in District Court a Complaint and a simultaneous Settlement Agreement resolving its ADA Olmstead investigation into whether persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Virginia are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs.

After taking public comment and holding a fairness hearing, the Court approved the settlement agreement subject to certain modifications, which were agreed to by the Commonwealth and the United States. The Court entered the settlement agreement as a final order on August 23, 2012. Read more

ARC of Virginia, Inc. v. Kaine – 09-CV-686 – (E.D. VA 2009) - The United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief supporting the ARC of Virginia's challenge to the State of Virginia's plan to build a costly, institutional facility for individuals with intellectual disabilities, a plan that Plaintiff alleged would result in seventy-five individuals being moved to unnecessarily segregated facilities. Read more

Marlo M. v. Cansler – 09-CV-535 – (E.D. NC 2009) - In a case brought by two individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities who faced institutionalization because of the State's decision to reduce their community-based services, the United States filed an Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in December 2009, requesting that the Court stop the State from reducing the services. Read more

Clinton L., et al. v. Cansler, et al. – 10-CV-00123 – (M.D. NC 2010) - Individuals with developmental disabilities and mental illness challenged the State's proposed reductions in reimbursement rates for in-home services that will have the effect of eliminating providers that offer medically necessary services that enable individuals to successfully reside in the community and will place them at risk of institutionalization. Read more

5th Circuit - Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas

Steward et. al. v. Perry et. al. – 5:10-CV-1025 (W.D. TX 2010) - On August 19, 2013, the United States, private Plaintiffs and the State of Texas filed an Interim Settlement Agreement to enable Texans with intellectual and other developmental disabilities to live in the community rather than nursing facilities. The Interim Settlement Agreement is awaiting court approval. Read more

DOJ Findings Letter to Mississippi
The United States issued a Findings Letter in December 2011 concluding that Mississippi is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision of services to people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. After an extensive investigation, the Department found the State of Mississippi has failed to meet its obligations under the ADA by unnecessarily institutionalizing persons with mental illness or DD in public and private facilities and failing to ensure that they are offered a meaningful opportunity to live in integrated community settings consistent with their needs. Read more

Pitts v. Greenstein – 10-CV-635 – (M.D. LA 2010) - In September 2010, a group of four individuals with disabilities who receive and depend on Medicaid Personal Care Services (PCS) in order to remain in the community and to prevent hospitalization and institutionalization filed suit to prevent the State of Louisiana from reducing the maximum number of PCS hours available each week. Read more

Troupe v. Barbour – 10-CV-00153 – (S.D. MS 2010) - The United States filed a Statement of Interest opposing Mississippi officials' motion to dismiss the complaint of Medicaid-eligible children with significant behavioral disorders who allege that the State of Mississippi fails to ensure that medically necessary services are provided to Medicaid-eligible children in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs in violation of the ADA and the EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid Act. Read more

6th Circuit - Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee

John B. v. Emkes (formerly John B. v. Goetz) – 3-98-0168 - (M.D. TN 1998) - Following a remand from the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of a Consent Decree remedying alleged failures by Tennessee officials to provide adequate health services and treatment to thousands of Medicaid-eligible children in violation of the early and periodic screening, diagnostic and treatment (EPSDT) provisions of the Medicaid Act. Read more

7th Circuit - Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin

ILADD v. DHS – 13-CV-01300 – (E.D. IL 2013) - On April 15, 2013, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in ILADD v. Quinn. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction to stop the planned closure of two state-run centers for people with developmental disabilities. Read more

Ligas v. Maram – 05-CV-04331 – (N.D. IL 2005) - In January 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest urging the Court to grant preliminary approval of the Plaintiffs' and Defendants' jointly submitted Consent Decree in a case regarding large, private facilities for individuals with developmental disabilities. Intervenors, primarily family members of residents, strongly opposed the agreement. Read more

Williams v. Quinn – 05-CV-4673 – (N.D. IL 2005) – On May 24, 2010, the Department filed comments in Williams v. Quinn, supporting a Settlement Agreement that would provide hundreds of individuals with mental illness the opportunity to move from institutions to community-based settings. Read more

Hampe v. Hamos – 10-CV-3121 – (N.D. IL 2010) - In July 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, urging the Court to permit young adults to collectively challenge a State policy that places medically fragile individuals with disabilities at risk of institutionalization after turning 21. Read more

8th Circuit - Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

U.S. v. Arkansas – 10-CV-327 – (E.D. AR 2010) -- The United States filed suit against the State of Arkansas and Arkansas officials on May 6, 2010, alleging that the defendants were violating the ADA by failing to provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and by failing to provide community service options for the 1400 people on waiting lists at risk of institutionalization. Read more

U.S. v. Arkansas – 4:09-CV-00033 – (E.D. AR 2009) - The United States filed a complaint on January 16, 2009, against the State of Arkansas and Arkansas officials alleging violations of the ADA, the U.S. Constitution, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act at the State's Conway Human Development Center for failing to provide services to facility residents in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs; subjecting them to unconstitutional conditions; and depriving them of a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Read more

Hiltibran v. Levy – 10-CV-4185 – (W.D. MO 2010) - In a suit brought by individuals who need incontinence supplies to live in the community, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the Court order the State to provide the Medicaid-funded incontinence supplies to individuals who need those supplies to prevent their placing in nursing facilities. Read more

9th Circuit - Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington

Lane v. Kitzhaber – 12-CV-00138 – (D. OR 2012)
On May 22, 2013, the Court granted the United States' March 27 Motion to Intervene in a pending class action lawsuit against the State of Oregon. The United States' accompanying Complaint in Intervention alleges violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for unnecessarily segregating individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops when they could be served in integrated employment settings. Read More

Katie A. v. Douglas – CV-02-05662 AHM (SHX) – (C.D. CA 2011) (Formerly Katie A. v. Bonta) - On November 18, 2011, Comments of the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement were filed in support of the parties' agreement to the manner in which the State will provide an array of intensive, community-based mental health services to Medi-Cal eligible foster children or children at-risk of entry into the foster-care system. Read more

Darling v. Douglas – 09-CV-3798 – (N.D. CA 2009) (Formerly Cota v. Maxwell-Jolly) - The United States filed a Statement of Interest on July 12, 2011 and October 31, 2011 in support of Plaintiffs' challenge to the manner in which the State plans to eliminate the Adult Day Health Care (ADHC) service, which enables elderly individuals and individuals with physical and mental disabilities to live in the community and avoid hospitalization and institutionalization. Read more

Oster, et al. v. Wagner – 09-17581 – (9th Cir. 2009) - The United States filed a Statement of Interest on January 9, 2012 regarding Plaintiffs' challenge to a twenty percent reduction in personal care services provided through the State's In-Home Support Services (IHSS) program. IHSS is designed to enable elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities to avoid hospitalization and institutionalization. Read more

Napper v. County of Sacramento – 10-CV-01119 – (E.D. CA 2010) - Individuals with mental illness brought suit against the County of Sacramento for failing to provide adequate community-based services, which placed them at risk of institutionalization. Read more

M.R. v. Dreyfus – 10-CV-2052 – (W.D. WA 2011) - On December 16, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the district court and granted injunctive relief with respect to the named plaintiffs, finding that plaintiffs had demonstrated that the State's cuts placed them at serious risk of institutionalization in violation of the ADA. The court relied, in part, upon DOJ's previously filed Statement of Interest. Read more

10th Circuit - Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming

11th Circuit - Alabama, Florida, Georgia

Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. SafetyNet Youthcare, Inc. –  2:13-cv-00519 – (S.D. Ala. 2014)
On October 14, 2014 the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program v. SafetyNet Youthcare, Inc., a case in which the defendant denied access to the local protection and advocacy organization. The Statement of Interest expresses the United States' view that facilities must permit access under the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act to all residents regardless of whether the facility characterizes some residents as having a less serious mental health disorder than others. 

U.S. v. State of Florida, 1:13-cv-61576 (S.D. Fla. 2013)
On July 22, 2013, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida in federal district court to remedy ADA violations involving the State's failure to provide services and supports to children with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The lawsuit alleges that, as a result of the manner in which Florida administers its service system for children with significant medical needs, children with disabilities are unnecessarily segregated in nursing facilities when they could be served in their family homes or other community-based settings. The lawsuit further alleges that the State's policies and practices place other children with significant medical needs in the community at serious risk of institutionalization in nursing facilities. Read More

Hunter v. Cook, 1:08-cv-02930-TWT (N.D. Ga. 2013)
The United States filed a Statement of Interest in Hunter v. Cook, in opposition to the state of Georgia's argument that serious risk of institutionalization is not a viable claim under Title II of the ADA. Read More

Georgia Advocacy Office v. Shelp, 1:09-cv-2880-CAP - The United States filed a Statement of Interest on June 25, 2010 to address the issue of access to institutions and records granted to Protection and Advocacy systems pursuant to the P&A acts. Read more

Haddad v. Arnold – 10-CV-414 – (M.D. FL 2010) - Michelle Haddad successfully sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of Florida from denying her the home and community-based services available under its Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver. Read more

Jones v. Arnold – 09-CV-1170 – (M.D. FL 2010) - Plaintiffs challenge the State's failure to fund appropriate Medicaid community services for individuals with spinal cord injury, which places plaintiffs at risk of institutionalization in violation of Olmstead. Read more

Cruz v. Dudek – 1:10-CV-23048 – (S.D. FL 2010) - Luis Cruz and Nigel de la Torre successfully sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of Florida from denying them the home and community-based services available under its Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver. Read more

Knipp v. Perdue – 10-CV-2850 – (N.D. GA 2010) - In October 2010, the United States filed a brief in support of Plaintiffs' challenge to the State's plan to eliminate services for individuals with mental illness without offering sufficient alternative support services that are necessary to prevent Plaintiffs' hospitalization and institutionalization. Read more

Boyd v. Mullins -- 2:10-CV-688 – (M.D. AL 2010) - Jonathon Paul Boyd, a 34-year-old with quadriplegia who is currently living in a nursing home but desires and is able to receive services in a more integrated setting, alleges that the State of Alabama violates Title II of the ADA by administering its Medicaid program in a manner that causes Mr. Boyd to be unnecessarily institutionalized in a nursing facility. Read more

U.S. v. Georgia – 10-CV-249 – (N.D. GA 2010) - On October 19, 2010, the DOJ entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the State of Georgia and Georgia officials, resolving the United States' complaint alleging that individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities confined in State hospitals were unnecessarily institutionalized and subjected to unconstitutional harm to their lives, health, and safety in violation of the ADA and the U.S. Constitution. Read more

Long v. Benson – 08-16261 – (11th Cir. 2009) (related to Lee v. Dudek) - Clayton Griffin—a member of the class in Lee v. Dudek and who is partially paralyzed—successfully sought a preliminary injunction requiring the State of Florida to provide him with community-based services through the State's Medicaid program, instead of requiring him to remain in a nursing home in order to receive needed services. Read more

Lee v. Dudek – 08-CV-26 – (N.D. FL 2008) - This class of plaintiffs—consisting of all Medicaid-eligible adults with disabilities who currently, or at any time during the litigation, are unnecessarily confined to a nursing facility and desire to and are capable of residing in the community—claims that the State of Florida's refusal to provide services in the community to these individuals violates the ADA's integration mandate. Read more

DC Circuit - Washington, DC

Thorpe et al. v. District of Columbia, 1:10-cv-02250-ESH (D.D.C. 2010) (formerly Day et al. v. District of Columbia) - The United States filed a Statement of Interest on June 26, 2013, supporting the Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification. The United States previously filed a Statement of Interest on October 3, 2011, opposing the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. The pending lawsuit alleges that the District of Columbia violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by unnecessarily segregating individuals with physical disabilities in nursing facilities. Read more