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: Community Integration for Everyone

Olmstead Enforcement

BriefsComplaints Letters of FindingsSettlement Agreements

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. 

The settlement agreement provides relief to approximately 3,250 individuals with I/DD over ten years.  Rhode Island will provide supported employment placements to approximately 2,000 individuals, including at least 700 people currently in sheltered workshops, at least 950 people currently in facility-based non-work programs, and approximately 300-350 students leaving high school.  Individuals in these target populations will receive sufficient services to support a normative 40 hour work week, with the expectation that individuals will work, on average, in a supported employment job at competitive wages for at least 20 hours per week.  In addition, the State will provide transition services to approximately 1,250 youth between the ages of 14 and 21, ensuring that transition-age youth have access to a wide array of transition, vocational rehabilitation, and supported employment services intended to lead to integrated  employment outcomes after they leave secondary school.  The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island has entered the settlement agreement as a court-enforceable Consent Decree.    

Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 8, 2014

Fact Sheet about Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF)

Order Approving Consent Decree (PDF) -- entered April 9, 2014

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 8, 2014

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 6, 2014

Press Release on Landmark Settlement Agreement (HTML) - April 8, 2014

Remarks by Acting Assistant Attorney General Jocelyn Samuels at Press Conference Regarding Employment Services for Rhode Islanders with Disabilities (HTML) - April 8, 2014

Faces of Olmstead - read several individuals' stories

Related item: U.S. v. Rhode Island and City of Providence – 1:13-cv-00442 – (D.R.I. 2013)

U.S. v. 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. On December 6, 2013, the Court consolidated this case with A.R. v. Dudek, No. 12-cv-60460 (S.D. Fla. 2012), a private lawsuit alleging that the State's policies and practices have caused children with disabilities to be unnecessarily placed in nursing facilities, or at risk of placement in nursing facilities.

On March 31, 2014, the United States filed a statement of interest in opposition to the State's renewed motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs' Complaint. Previously, in June 2012 and April 2013, the Department filed two Statements of Interest in T.H. v. Dudek.

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) – filed March 31, 2014

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) – filed July 22, 2013

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed April 10, 2013

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - issued September 5, 2012

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed June 28, 2012

Disability Rights Mississippi v. Mississippi Children's Home Services – 3:13-CV-547-HTW-LRA – (S.D. Miss. 2013)
On February 5, 2014 the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Disability Rights Mississippi v. Mississippi Children's Home Services, a case in which the defendants have denied monitoring access to the local protection and advocacy organization. The Statement of Interest expresses the United States' view that regular monitoring visits, including unaccompanied access to residents of a facility, are a critical aspect of protection and advocacy organizations' work and are authorized by the Protection and Advocacy Acts.

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 5, 2014

Sciarrillo ex rel. St. Amand v. Christie – 2:13-cv-03478-SRC-CLW – (D.N.J. 2013)
On September 13, 2013, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Sciarrillo v. Christie, a case in which private plaintiffs oppose the state's deinstitutionalization plan for its facilities housing people with developmental disabilities. The Statement of Interest expresses the United States' view that plaintiffs failed to assert a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In December 2013, the District Court of New Jersey dismissed the lawsuit in which private plaintiffs asked to stop the State from closing two developmental centers as part of the State’s Olmstead plan.   Plaintiffs had alleged that the State’s efforts to deinstitutionalize and place residents in the community violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act (Rehab Act), the Social Security Act, and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.  The United States filed a Statement of Interest arguing that the plaintiffs had failed to state claims under the ADA and Rehab Act.  The court agreed, holding: “Plaintiffs' interpretation of Olmstead is untenable. Simply put, ‘there is no basis [in Olmstead ] for saying that a premature discharge into the community is an ADA discrimination based on disability.’ Indeed, ‘[t]here is no ADA provision that providing community placement is a discrimination. It may be a bad medical decision, or poor policy, but it is not discrimination based on disability.’ This Court will therefore join the numerous other federal courts have rejected similar ‘obverse Olmstead’ arguments in circumstances where a State has decided to close treatment  facilities for the developmentally disabled or relocate such disabled individuals to community settings.” Id. at *4 (internal citations omitted).

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 13, 2013

Troupe v. Barbour – 10-CV-00153 – (S.D. Miss. 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.

The motion to dismiss was heard by a magistrate judge who ruled in favor of the State and recommended dismissal of the Medicaid EPSDT claim. The plaintiffs filed an objection with the District Court, and the United States filed another Statement of Interest. The State responded to plaintiffs' objection. The Objection is pending before the Court.

U.S. Statement of Interest to Clarify Meaning of EPSDT Statute (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 6, 2013

U.S. Statement of Interest in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 8, 2011

Steward et. al. v. Perry et. al. – 5:10-CV-1025 – (W.D. Tex. 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.

The two-year Interim Agreement will serve at least 635 people with disabilities who are currently in nursing facilities or who are at serious risk of having to enter a nursing facility. The Interim Agreement calls for the State to begin expanding community alternatives to nursing facilities for persons with such disabilities, while the parties pause their ongoing litigation and negotiate a comprehensive settlement of all remaining issues in the case.

The Interim Agreement partially addresses the Civil Rights Division's finding that the State of Texas failed to serve individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to those individuals' needs, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Olmstead v. L.C. In addition, the Interim Agreement pauses the ongoing litigation in Steward v. Perry under the ADA and Olmstead.

The Interim Agreement requires the State to expand community-based services through Medicaid waivers and individual supports for over 600 people with developmental disabilities who are unnecessarily living in nursing facilities or who are at risk of unnecessary institutionalization in nursing facilities. The Interim Agreement begins to offer the opportunity to live an integrated life to some of the thousands of people with developmental disabilities currently segregated in Texas's nursing facilities and ensures that they will receive specialized services while they are still in nursing facilities.

Under the Interim Agreement, the State will begin providing community-based case management, educational activities about community living options, transition planning for people who want to move to the community, and services and systems to transition people to the community and divert others from admission to nursing facilities.

The Interim Agreement will help the State focus its resources on safe, individualized, and cost-effective community-based services that promote integration and independence and enable individuals to live, work, and participate fully in community life.

Interim Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed August 19, 2013

Interim Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word)

Supplemental Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 12, 2012

Statement of Interest of the United States of America in Support of Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 10, 2012

United States Supplemental Statement of Interest in opposition to Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 30, 2011

United States' Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene in the Ongoing Lawsuit (Word) | (PDF) - filed August 4, 2011

Partial Consent Motion by the United States of America to Intervene and Memorandum in Support Thereof (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 22, 2011

Proposed U.S. Complaint in Intervention Alleging Violations of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Word) | (PDF) - filed as an exhibit June 22, 2011

Statement of Interest of the United States Opposing the State's Motion to Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed May 17, 2011

U.S. v. 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 parties filed an amended settlement agreement on January 30, 2014, and the court approved the settlement agreement on March 17, 2014. 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.

Amended Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF)- signed January 29, 2014

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 23, 2013

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 23, 2013

Press Release (HTML)

Fact Sheet about Agreement (Word)

Prior to the agreement, the parties litigated these issues in Disability Advocates v. Paterson, in the District Court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  In that case, following a trial on the merits, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that New York State officials and agencies discriminated against thousands of people with mental illness by administering the State's mental health service system in a manner that segregated them in large, institutional adult homes and denied them the opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

 The DOJ intervened during the remedy phase of the case and participated in the appeal.  On April 6, 2012, the Second Circuit vacated the remedial order and judgment of the District Court and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. 

U.S. Brief as Appellee (PDF) - filed October 6, 2010

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Remedial Plan and in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 24, 2009

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.

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 26, 2013

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 3, 2011

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. The first-of-its-kind agreement will provide relief to approximately 200 Rhode Islanders with I/DD who have received services from the segregated sheltered workshop and day activity service provider Training Thru Placement, Inc. (TTP), and the Harold A. Birch Vocational Program (Birch), a special education program which has run a segregated sheltered workshop inside a Providence high school.

Pursuant to the Interim Settlement Agreement, the State and City will give TTP and Birch service recipients the opportunity to receive integrated supported employment and integrated daytime services that will enable them to interact with the broader community to the fullest extent possible. The State will no longer provide services or funding for new participants at TTP's sheltered workshop and segregated day program, and the City will no longer provide services or funding to Birch's in-school sheltered workshop, which has served as a pipeline to TTP. Instead, over the next year, the State and City will provide adults at TTP and youth in transition from Birch with robust and person-centered career development planning, transitional services, supported employment placements, and integrated day services. The Interim Settlement Agreement calls for individuals to receive sufficient service to support a normative 40 hour work week, with the expectation that individuals will work, on average, in a supported employment job at competitive wages for at least 20 hours per week.

Interim Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 13, 2013

Interim Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | PDF

Press Release: Department of Justice Reaches Landmark Settlement Agreement with Rhode Island and City of Providence Under the ADA (HTML)

Senior Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division Eve Hill Delivers Remarks on the Americans with Disabilities Act (HTML)

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 13, 2013

Faces of Olmstead - Read several individuals' stories.

Related item: U.S. v. Rhode Island (2014)

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.

The fundamental goals of the Agreement are to prevent the unnecessary institutionalization of individuals with developmental disabilities who are living in the community, including thousands of individuals on waitlists for community-based services, and ensure that people who are currently in institutions - at the Commonwealth's training centers or in other private but state-funded facilities - have a meaningful opportunity to receive services that meet their needs in the community.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the Commonwealth will create a total of approximately 4,200 home and community-based waivers for people who are on waitlists for community services and individuals transitioning from institutional settings over a ten year period. Almost 3,000 of these waivers will be targeted to individuals with intellectual disabilities on the waitlist or youth with intellectual disabilities in private facilities; another 450 waivers will be targeted to individuals with non-intellectual developmental disabilities on the waitlist or youth in private facilities; and another 800 waivers will be targeted to individuals choosing to leave the training centers. An additional 1,000 individuals on waitlists for community services will receive family supports to help provide care in their family home or their own home.

Under the Agreement, the Commonwealth will also create a comprehensive community crisis system with a full range of crisis services, including a hotline, mobile crisis teams, and crisis stabilization programs, to divert individuals from unnecessary institutionalization or other out-of-home placements. The Agreement requires the Commonwealth to develop and implement an "Employment First" policy to prioritize and expand meaningful work opportunities for individuals with developmental disabilities. In addition, the Agreement will create an $800,000 fund for housing assistance to facilitate opportunities for independent living for people with developmental disabilities. Finally, the Agreement requires the Commonwealth to create a strong and comprehensive quality and risk management system to ensure that community-based services are safe and effective.

The Agreement is court enforceable and will be monitored by an independent reviewer with the capacity to hire staff to assist in the implementation and to conduct compliance and incident reviews.

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.

On February 10, 2011, the United States issued a Findings Letter concluding that Virginia is in violation of the ADA integration mandate in the operation of its developmental disabilities services.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.

June 6, 2013 report of the independent reviewer

December 6, 2012 report of the independent reviewer

Order Approving Consent Decree (HTML) | (PDF) - entered August 23, 2012

Settlement Agreement as Final Order (Word) | (PDF) - entered August 23, 2012

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2012

Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF)

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2012

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 10, 2011

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. 

Prior to requesting intervention the United States filed on April 20, 2012, a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs Regarding Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The United States argued that Title II and the integration regulation apply to all services, programs, and activities of a public entity, including segregated, non-residential employment settings such as sheltered workshops.

On June 18, 2012, the United States filed a second Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. In its Statement of Interest, the United States urged the Court to uphold class certification for a plaintiff class of thousands of individuals in, or referred to, Oregon sheltered workshops.  

The United States also issued a Findings Letter in June 2012 concluding that Oregon is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision of employment and vocational services.

United States of America's Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2013

United States of America's Memorandum in Support of Its Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2013

Complaint in Intervention of the United States of America (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2013

DOJ Findings Letter to Oregon | (PDF) - filed June 29, 2012

Statement of Interest of the United States in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 18, 2012

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 20, 2012

Carey et. al. v. Christie-1:12-cv-02522-RMB-AMD-(D.N.J. 2012).
On March 14, 2013, the United States filed a Notice of Interest in Carey v. Christie, a case brought by
plaintiffs living in a state-operated institution for people with developmental disabilities, who claimed
that the Americans with Disabilities Act should prevent the State from shutting this institution over their
objections. The United States noted that the claims were not ripe for decision, and requested that if the
Court addressed the ADA claims, that the United States have an opportunity to file a Statement of
Interest to provide its interpretation of the ADA.

Notice of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed March 14, 2013

United States v. Marion County Nursing Home District - (E.D. Mo. 2013)
On March 14, 2013, the parties in United States v. Marion County Nursing Home District d/b/a Maple Lawn Nursing Home filed a Settlement Agreement. The Agreement addresses whether residents of the nursing home are being served in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The Agreement also addresses basic elements of residents' care and treatment. Maple Lawn is required to develop numerous improvement measures. An independent monitor has been selected to monitor the Settlement Agreement.

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) filed March 14, 2013

Complaint (Word) | (PDF)

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF)

ILADD v. DHS – 13-CV-01300 – (E.D. Ill. 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. We argue that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the regulations, and the case law do not support the claim that the ADA gives persons in state-run centers a right to remain in those institutions and to stop the State's efforts to rebalance its service system toward community based care.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) filed April 15, 2013

Amanda D., et al. v. Hassan, et al.; United States v. New Hampshire, No. 1:12-CV-53 (SM)
On December 19, 2013, the Department, along with a coalition of private plaintiff organizations, entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the State of New Hampshire that will significantly expand and enhance mental health service capacity in integrated community settings over the next six years. The Agreement is a full consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire as a Court order on February 12, 2014. The Agreement also provides for regular compliance reviews and public reporting by an independent monitor." The rest of the summary can stay the same.

The Agreement will enable a class of thousands of adults with serious mental illness to receive expanded and enhanced services in the community, which will foster their independence and enable them to participate more fully in community life.  It will significantly reduce visits to hospital emergency rooms and will avoid unnecessary institutionalization at State mental health facilities, including New Hampshire Hospital (the State’s only psychiatric hospital) and the Glencliff Home (a State-owned and –operated nursing facility for people with mental illness).

The Agreement requires the State, for the first time, to create mobile crisis teams in the most populated areas of the State and to create crisis apartments to help support team efforts at avoiding hospitalization or institutionalization.  The Agreement also requires the State to make enhanced Assertive Community Treatment (“ACT”) team services available statewide, such that the mental health system can provide ACT to at least 1,500 people at any given time.  The Agreement requires the State to provide scattered-site, permanent, supported housing to hundreds of additional people throughout the state; the State will also create special residential community settings to address the needs of persons with complex health care issues who have had difficulty accessing sufficient community services in the past.  The State will also deliver additional and enhanced supported employment services, consistent with the Dartmouth evidence-based model, to hundreds of new recipients throughout the state.

The Settlement Agreement resolves litigation that had been contested for well over a year.  Private Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in February 2012, and on April 4, 2012, the Court granted the Department’s motion to intervene.  On April 7, 2011, the United States had issued a Findings Letter concluding that the State of New Hampshire was failing to provide services to individuals with mental illness in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs in violation of the ADA, which led to the needless and prolonged institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and placed individuals with disabilities at risk of unnecessary institutionalization.  On September 17, 2013, after months of discovery and a hearing with oral argument, the Court certified a class of Plaintiffs consistent with parameters supported by Plaintiffs and the United States.  Shortly thereafter, settlement talks resumed which produced the instant Agreement. 

Order Approving Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 12, 2014

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 19, 2013

Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF)

United States' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to and in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 21, 2013

US Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification (Word)
| (PDF) - filed April 20, 2012

DOJ Findings Letter to New Hampshire (2011) (PDF) - filed April 7 , 2011

U.S. Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

U.S. Memo in Support of Motion to Intervene
(Word)
| (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

U.S. Proposed Order on Intervention (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

U.S.Proposed Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011

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.  The Plaintiffs' suit is a proposed class action under Title II of the ADA, the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 1396a et seq., and the United States Constitution.  Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's administration of the Department of Community Health and the Medicaid program denies, limits, and reduces their nursing services in a manner that puts Plaintiffs at risk of unnecessary confinement or out of home care in violation of the ADA.

Statement of Interest of the United States Word | (PDF) - filed March 14, 2013

M.R. v. Dreyfus – 10-CV-2052 – (W.D. Wash. 2011)
In a suit brought on behalf of approximately 45,000 individuals with disabilities who receive personal care services through Washington State's Medicaid program, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in January 2011, which the District Court denied in February 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.

Letter from DOJ AAG Perez and HHS OCR Director Rodriguez to Governor Gregoire (Word) | (PDF) - October 22, 2012

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Order Granting Injunctive Relief as to Named Plaintiffs (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 16, 2011

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2011

U.S. v. Delaware – 11-CV-591 (D. Del. 2010)
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.

The fundamental goals of the Agreement are: to ensure that people who are unnecessarily institutionalized, at the Delaware Psychiatric Center or other inpatient psychiatric facilities, can receive the treatment they need in the community; to ensure that when individuals go into mental health crisis, sufficient resources are available in the community so that they do not need to go unnecessarily to psychiatric hospitals or jails; and to ensure that people with mental illness who are living in the community are not forced to enter institutions because of the lack of stable housing and intensive treatment options in the community.

Pursuant to the Agreement, Delaware will create a comprehensive community crisis system to serve as the front door to the state's mental health system including a crisis hotline, mobile crisis teams able to reach someone anywhere in the state within one hour, 2 walk-in crisis centers, and short term crisis stabilization units. The agreement also commits the state to providing intensive community-based treatment through 11 Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams, 4 intensive case management teams, and 25 targeted case managers. The State will offer at least 650 housing vouchers or subsidies to allow people to obtain stable, integrated housing. Finally, the State will develop evidence-based supported employment services for 1100 people, rehabilitation services including substance abuse and educational services to 1100 people, and family and peer support services to 1000 people. The Agreement requires Delaware to establish a statewide quality management system reflecting qualitative and quantitative measures and provides for an independent monitor with capacity to hire staff to assist in the implementation and to conduct compliance reviews.

The United States issued a Findings Letter in November 2010 stating that Delaware is violating the ADA integration mandate in its provision of mental health services.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.

September 24, 2013 report of the independent reviewer (Word) | (PDF)

March 8, 2013 report of the independent reviewer

September 5, 2012 report of the independent reviewer

January 30, 2012 report of the independent reviewer

Order Entering Settlement Agreement - filed July 18, 2011

Settlement Agreement - filed July 6, 2011

Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet

Press Release

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 9, 2010

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.  

Pursuant to the Agreement, the State will provide community-based supported housing to 3,000 individuals who currently reside in, or are at risk of entry into, adult care homes.   A person-centered discharge planning process is designed to ensure individuals are able to transition successfully to community-based settings, while a pre-admission screening process will prevent more individuals from being unnecessarily institutionalized.  The Agreement will also ensure that thousands of people with mental illness have access to critical community-based mental health services such as Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams, and will expand integrated employment opportunities for individuals with mental illness by providing supported employment services to 2,500 individuals.  The Agreement also requires development of a crisis service system that offers timely and accessible services and supports in the least restrictive setting, including mobile crisis teams, walk-in crisis clinics, short-term community hospital beds, and 24/7 crisis hotlines. 

The United States issued a Findings Letter in July 2011 concluding that North Carolina is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision of mental health services.

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed August 23, 2012

Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF)

Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed August 23, 2012

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 28, 2011

Benjamin v. Dept. Pub. Welfare – 1:09-cv-1182 (JEJ) – (M.D. Pa. 2009)
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. In January 2011, the Court ruled in favor of the class members, finding that Defendants had violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, by unnecessarily institutionalizing the class members. Mem. & Order, Benjamin v. Department of Public Welfare, No. 09-cv-1182 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 27, 2011). The Court encouraged the parties to negotiate an agreement to remedy that violation. The parties submitted a settlement agreement for the Court's approval in May 2011. The Court held a fairness hearing to determine whether the agreement was fair, adequate, and reasonable. Following the hearing, in September 2011, the Court approved the agreement.

Since that time, representatives of a group of individuals who live in these state institutions and wish to remain there have appealed the Court's order approving the settlement agreement to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (Benjamin et al. v. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, et al., Nos. 11-3684, 11-3685 (3d Cir.)). They argue that the relief given to the class members will hurt their ability to stay in the institutions. They also argue that the settlement agreement should not have been approved because it assumes that institutionalized individuals who are unable to express a preference regarding their placements can be moved to community-based services if appropriate. The class members and Pennsylvania defendants together filed a brief opposing those arguments on April 3, 2012. Shortly thereafter, the United States filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the settlement agreement. We argued that the settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. We also explained that because federal law strongly favors the integration of individuals with disabilities into the community over segregation in large institutions, an institutionalized person who can live in the community but cannot express a preference regarding placement and has no guardian or involved family member, should be provided with community-based services.

In December 2012, the Third Circuit ruled that the group of individuals who wish to remain in the state's congregate care institutions has an interest in the settlement agreement and that those individuals were not adequately represented by any other party in the lawsuit. The Third Circuit therefore reversed the district court's order approving the settlement and sent the case back to the district court. The Third Circuit ruled that this time, the group of individuals must be permitted to participate in the remaining stages of the lawsuit. The case is now back before the district court.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellees and Urging Affirmance (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 5, 2012

U.S. Statement in Support of the Settlement Agreement (PDF) - filed August 2, 2011

U.S. Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF) - filed July 7, 2010

Darling v. Douglas – 09-CV-3798 – (N.D. Cal. 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. The United States argued that the State's plan to eliminate ADHC without ensuring sufficient alternative services are available will place thousands of individuals who currently receive ADHC services at serious risk of institutionalization, in violation of the ADA. Approximately 35,000 Californians would be affected by the proposed ADHC elimination.

Previously, Plaintiffs successfully obtained two preliminary injunctions preventing the state from (1) reducing the maximum number of days of available ADHC services per week, and (2) implementing more restrictive eligibility criteria for the ADHC service. The State has appealed the second preliminary injunction halting the state's alterations to eligibility criteria, and the United States filed a brief supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees in June 2010. That appeal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit.

On January 10, 2012, The United States filed comments supporting final approval of the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement. On January 24, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval of the Settlement Agreement.

Comments of the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 10, 2012

Supplemental Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 31, 2011

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 12, 2011

Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees (PDF) - filed June 28, 2010

Oster v. Lightbourne – 09-CV-4668 – (N.D. Cal. 2009) (Formerly Oster v. Wagner)
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. On January 19, 2012, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction.

Previously, the Court preliminarily enjoined the State's planned implementation of more restrictive eligibility criteria for the IHSS program that would reduce or terminate IHSS services. The State has appealed the preliminary injunction, and the United States filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees on March 2, 2010. That appeal is currently pending.

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 9, 2012

Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Plaintiffs-Appellees (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 2, 2010

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. The Department recommended that the State implement certain remedial measures, including the development of adequate, safe community-based services for people with developmental disabilities or mental illness who are unnecessarily institutionalized, or at risk of unnecessary institutionalization. DOJ seeks to work with the State to negotiate a settlement to resolve the findings.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.

Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 22, 2011

Katie A. v. Douglas – CV-02-05662 AHM (SHX) – (C.D. Cal. 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. The United States argued that the parties' Settlement Agreement, agreed upon after nine years of litigation, was "fair and reasonable" and advances the important public interest of compliance with title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment ("EPSDT") provisions of the Medicaid Act.

Comments of the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Proposed Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 18, 2011

U.S. v. Arkansas – 4:09-CV-00033 – (E.D. Ark. 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.

On June 8, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the action with prejudice.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (PDF) - filed June 8, 2011

U.S. Post-Trial Brief (PDF) - filed February 10, 2011

U.S. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 1, 2010, denied July 30, 2010)

U.S. Complaint Alleging Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Constitution, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Word) (PDF) - filed January 16, 2009

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. If the State moved forward with the reduction in services, the Plaintiffs argued, they and other individuals with disabilities would be placed at risk of institutionalization. In April 2011, the United States filed a brief supporting the Plaintiffs' argument that the cuts would place individuals with disabilities at risk of institutionalization and urging the Court to deny the State's Motion for Summary Judgment. In May 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana denied the State's Motion for Summary Judgment. In June 2011, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Statewide Class of Individuals affected by the reduction in PCS services.

At the urging of the Department of Justice, a Federal court denies the State of Louisiana's request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by individuals with disabilities affected by the State's reduction in personal care services.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) (PDF) - filed April 7, 2011

Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF)

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 court issued an order on June 24, 2011 requiring the State of Missouri to provide Medicaid-funded incontinence supplies to individuals who need those supplies to prevent their placement in nursing facilities. The United States filed a Statement of Interest supporting Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that Missouri's policy not to provide the necessary supplies placed individuals at risk of institutionalization in violation of the ADA.

Court Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF) – filed April 4, 2011

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF) – filed April 4, 2011

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 15, 2010

John B. v. Emkes – 3-98-CV-0168 – (M.D. Tenn. 1998) (Formerly, John B. v. Goetz)
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.

On March 1, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee entered preliminary findings, concluding that, because the EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid Act at issue in the case are privately enforceable and require States to provide services and treatment to Medicaid-eligible children, the majority of the Consent Decree should remain in effect.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Vacate Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 18, 2011

Lee v. Dudek – 4:08-CV-26 – (N.D. Fla. 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.

The United States filed a Statement of Interest in opposition to the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in December 2010. The Court denied the parties' motions for Summary Judgment on January 20, 2011, and the case proceeded to trial in Feburary 2011. The parties await the Court's ruling.

U.S. Statement of Interest in connection with the Parties' Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 20, 2010

Boyd v. Mullins – 2:10-CV-688 – (M.D. Ala. 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.

The United States filed a Statement of Interest supporting Mr. Boyd's motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which the Court denied on November 12, 2010. (753 F. Supp. 2d 1163)

The case is ongoing.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 12, 2010

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.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on October 7, 2010. The case is currently pending.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 6, 2010

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.

The agreement requires Georgia to expand community services so that individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities can receive supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Specifically, for individuals with developmental disabilities, the agreement provides that Georgia will cease all admissions to the State-operated institutions; transition all individuals to the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs by July 1, 2015; create more than 1100 home and community-based waivers to serve individuals in the community; serve those receiving waivers in their own home or their family's home consistent with the individual's informed choice; and provide family supports, mobile crisis teams, and crisis respite homes.

For individuals with mental illness, the agreement provides that Georgia will serve in the community 9,000 individuals with serious and persistent mental illness who are currently served in State Hospitals; frequently readmitted to State Hospitals; frequently seen in emergency rooms; chronically homeless and/or being released from jails or prisons. Services will be provided through a combination of 22 Assertive Community Treatment teams, 8 Community Support teams, 14 Intensive Case Management teams, 45 Case Management service providers, 6 Crisis Services Centers, 3 additional Crisis Stabilization Programs, community-based psychiatric beds, mobile crisis teams, crisis apartments, a crisis hotline, supported housing, supported employment, and peer support services. The agreement also provides for a State-wide quality management system for community services and names Elizabeth Jones as the Independent Reviewer to assess the State's compliance with the agreement.

For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.

DOJ Letter Regarding Year Three Compliance (Word) | (PDF) - September 20, 2013

Third report of the independent reviewer - September 19, 2013

Second report of the independent reviewer - September 20, 2012

First report of the independent reviewer - October 5, 2011

U.S. v. Georgia Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF) - October 19, 2010

Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 19, 2010

Order (Amending and Entering Settlement Agreement) (PDF) - filed October 29, 2010

Cruz v. Dudek – 1:10-CV-23048 – (S.D. Fla. 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.

The United States had filed a Statement of Interest in support of Cruz and de la Torre's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On April 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Luis Cruz and Nigel de la Torre continue to receive home and community-based services under the State's Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 13, 2010

Williams v. Quinn – 05-CV-4673 – (N.D. Ill. 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. On September 29, 2010, the Court gave final approval of the Settlement Agreement. (748 F. Supp.2d 892)

Comments by the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Parties' Proposed Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 10, 2010

Jones v. Arnold – 09-CV-1170 – (M.D. Fla. 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.

The United States moved to intervene in August 2010.

The case was voluntarily dismissed January 3, 2011.

U.S. Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 10, 2010

Napper v. County of Sacramento – 10-CV-01119 – (E.D. Cal. 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. In July 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the Court stop the County from moving forward with its plans to drastically change the mental health service system. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on July 27, 2010.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 19, 2010

Hampe v. Hamos – 10-CV-3121 – (N.D. Ill. 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.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on November 22, 2010. The case is currently pending.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 16, 2010)

Georgia Advocacy Office v. Shelp – 1:09-cv-2880-CAP (N.D. Ga. 2010)
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. The United States argued that the P&A Act vests the P&As with broad access to people, facilities, and records to achieve the Acts' purpose of protecting vulnerable individuals from abuse and neglect.

Statement of Interest (Word) | (PDF) - filed June 25, 2010

Disability Rights New Jersey, Inc. v. Velez – 05-CV-4723 – (D.N.J. 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 them with services and supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

In May 2010, the parties filed cross-motions for Summary Judgment. The United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief supporting the plaintiffs and arguing that unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in institutions is a form of discrimination prohibited by the ADA. The United States also asserted that New Jersey is failing to serve individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and that continued unjustified institutionalization violates their rights.

On September 24, 2010, the Court denied both parties' Summary Judgment motions and set the proceeding for trial. (2010 WL 3862536). The case is currently pending.

U.S. Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (PDF) - filed June 21, 2010

Haddad v. Arnold – 3:10-CV-414 – (M.D. Fla. 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.

The United States had filed a Statement of Interest in Support of Haddad's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief. On April 19, 2011, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Michelle Haddad continues to receive home and community-based services under the State's Traumatic Brain Injury/Spinal Cord Injury Medicaid Waiver.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed May 24, 2010

U.S. v. Arkansas – 10-CV-327 – (E.D. Ark. 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.

On January 24, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the complaint without prejudice on procedural grounds relating to pre-litigation notice to the State.

U.S. Complaint Alleging Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (PDF) - filed May 6, 2010

Clinton L., et al. v. Cansler, et al. – 10-CV-00123 – (M.D.N.C. 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.

On February 16, 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

The Court denied the Motion, but ordered the State to provide appropriate community based services during the pendency of the lawsuit.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 16, 2010

Ligas v. Maram – 05-CV-04331 – (N.D. Ill. 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. The Court referred all the parties to settlement negotiations and the United States participated in those discussions. All parties, including the intervenors, reached a revised agreement that requires the State to move at least 3,000 individuals with developmental disabilities into community-based settings within the next six years. The Court approved the revised Settlement Agreement in June 2011.

U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of the Parties' Proposed Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed January 26, 2010

Marlo M. v. Cansler – 09-CV-535 – (E.D.N.C. 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.

The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on January 17, 2010. (679 F.Supp. 2d 635).

U.S. Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 23, 2010

Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy v. State of Connecticut – 3:06-CV-179 – (D. Conn. 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.

The United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief opposing the State's Motion to Dismiss.

The Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 31, 2010. (706 F. Supp. 2d 266)

The case is ongoing.

U.S. Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 25, 2009

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. The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in December 2009.

U.S. Memorandum of Law as Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 24, 2009

Long v. Benson – 08-16261 – (11th Cir. 2010) (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.

The State of Florida appealed the ruling to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief noting that ADA regulations are enforceable through a private lawsuit. The United States also noted that the ADA regulation stating that entities are not required to provide "personal devices and services" to individuals with disabilities does not exempt entities from complying with the integration regulation when they choose to operate a program that does provide personal services and devices to individuals with disabilities.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of Mr. Griffin's request for preliminary injunctive relief. (383 F. App'x 930)

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Appellee (PDF) - filed April 2, 2009

U.S. v. Nebraska –8:08CV271 – (D. Neb. 2008)
On March 7, 2008, the Division issued a CRIPA/ADA findings letter to the State of Nebraska that detailed systemic conditions that violated the constitutional and statutory rights of the residents of the Beatrice State Developmental Center ("BSDC"), the State's largest facility for persons with developmental disabilities. At the time, BSDC housed close to 350 residents. The parties then swiftly concluded negotiations on a judicially enforceable remedial agreement. On July 2, 2008, the Hon. Richard G. Kopf, United States District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska (Lincoln), signed the parties' proposed consent decree as an order of the court. The agreement provides for oversight by a court monitor. Our decree has a strong ADA/Olmstead focus that has prompted the State to greatly expand community resources and to place dozens of BSDC residents into more integrated community settings. The State has funded the creation of new community programs, including specialty residential and day programs to meet the needs of persons with difficult health care and/or behavioral concerns. The census at BSDC has been cut about in half so far, and there are tangible plans to place several dozen more individuals in the community in the near future. The Division has accompanied the Independent Expert on just about all team monitoring visits since the decree took effect.

United States v. State of Nebraska, Beatrice State Developmental Center Settlement Agreement (PDF) - filed July 2, 2008

Beatrice State Developmental Center in Beatrice, Nebraska Findings Letter (PDF) - filed March 7, 2008

Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (LHH)
In mid-June 2008, the Division executed a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the City of San Francisco to address outstanding deficiencies at the LHH nursing home. LHH is owned and operated by the City through the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and is licensed as both a skilled nursing facility and an acute care hospital. At the time of our settlement, LHH was the largest publicly-operated, single-site nursing home in the United States with a capacity of over 1,200 skilled nursing beds. The Division issued CRIPA/ADA findings letters on May 6, 1998, April 1, 2003, and August 3, 2004, that collectively concluded, in part, that the City engages in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct with respect to placement of qualified LHH residents in the most integrated setting pursuant to the ADA. The Settlement Agreement required the City to address our findings, in part, by developing and implementing appropriate services and supports for residents in integrated community settings. Because of our settlement, the City has reduced the census capacity of LHH by more than one-third and developed a rich network of community homes and programs that now serve hundreds of former LHH residents as well as an unquantifiable number of persons who likely would have been admitted to an institutional setting like LHH but for the newly-established community network. Community residences include scattered-site apartments and other integrated homes throughout the San Francisco metropolitan area that are supported by an effective community system of case management and other clinical professionals.

Settlement Agreement between the United States Department of Justice and City and County of San Francisco Regarding the Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, California (PDF) - June 13, 2008

Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center in San Francisco, California (PDF) - August 3, 2004

Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (California) (PDF) - April 1, 2003

Laguna Honda Hospital (California) (PDF) - May 6, 1998

U.S. v. Puerto Rico – 3:00-cv-01435 – (D.P.R. 1999)
Several years ago, the Division issued two CRIPA/ADA findings letters concluding that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico was violating the constitutional and legal rights of several hundred persons with developmental disabilities who had been living in one or more of the Commonwealth's six residential institutions. Shortly thereafter, the Division reached agreement with the Commonwealth that Puerto Rico would develop and implement a series of measures to drastically transform the nature of its service-delivery system for persons with developmental disabilities. In recent years, the Division has been actively monitoring the Commonwealth's compliance with three CRIPA/ADA consent decrees, as well as several other court orders, all executed to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The most recent of the consent decrees has a primary ADA/Olmstead focus and is called the "Community-Based Service Plan." It is a comprehensive community plan that has effectively changed the Commonwealth's service-delivery system from an institutional model to an entirely community-based system. Through our efforts, we have been successful in prompting the Commonwealth to close all six of its government-run residential institutions and, in their place, to create a vast network of small homes and other programs in integrated community settings all across the island. The Division has also prompted the Commonwealth to create competitive and supported employment and other meaningful opportunities for many of the former-residents in integrated community settings. We conduct regular onsite compliance visits of the community homes and programs in conjunction with a court monitor, and we participate in regular status hearings and conferences before the Hon. Gustavo A. Gelpi, United States District Court Judge for the District of Puerto Rico. In recent years, at our urging, the court has issued several orders to prevent proposed massive cuts in personnel and to the budget of the Commonwealth's intellectual disabilities program, thus ensuring continued services to the vulnerable participants. The Division is also currently monitoring the adequacy of the delivery of clinical and other professional services to the community participants.

Community-Based Service Plan (PDF) - filed October 9, 2001

United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Interim Settlement Agreement (PDF) - filed May 4, 1999;

see also:

Supplemental Interim Settlement Agreement (PDF) - filed July 20, 2000

Transition Order (PDF) - filed December 10, 2008

Compliance Order (PDF) - filed August 17, 2009

United States v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Complaint (HTML) - filed April 21, 1999

Letter of Findings (HTML) - filed December 11, 1997

Center for Integral Services Developmental Disabilities Facility Findings Letter (HTML) - filed June 11, 1997