(Case Brief) Olmstead v. LC PDF

Preview

Summary

Professor Charles Wharton, Case Brief...

Description

International Disability Law Olmstead v. LC (Case Brief) Facts of the Case: Respondents LC and EW have mental disabilities and were voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital for psychiatric treatment. When treatment administration concluded that the women could be moved to community-based care, the women remained institutionalized at GRH. LC filed suit under Title II and 42 U.S. Code § 1983 (Civil action for deprivation of rights), seeking to be placed under community care. Congress had instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing Title II’s anti-discrimination provision, which manifested into the “integration regulation” requiring a public entity to administer programs in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of individuals with disabilities. Procedural History: The District Court granted partial summary judgment for the women and ordered their placement in an appropriate community-based treatment program, rejecting the State’s argument that their retention at GRH was due to inadequate funding not discrimination. The District Court ruled that, under Title II, “unnecessary institutional segregation” is discrimination. The court also rejected the State’s defense that requiring immediate transfers in such cases would “fundamentally alter” the State’s programs. The 11th Circuit affirmed in part the District Court’s decision, but remanded the District Court to reconsider the State’s cost-based defense in terms of whether the cost of LC and EW’s treatment would be unreasonable given the demands of the State’s mental health budget. Court Holding: Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion – Under Title II of the ADA, the State has to place persons with mental disabilities under community-care if the State’s treatment professionals have deemed it appropriate. The transfer can only take place if 1) the individual consents and 2) if the State can reasonably accommodate such action given what resources are available to the State and 3) medical administrators prescribe it. (Why didn’t they use the 14 th Amendment Equal Protection clause?) The “integration regulation” that the Attorney General issued contained two main ideas: 1) Title II prohibits unjustified placement/retention of persons in institutions on the basis of discrimination based on disability and 2) the State can resist modifications if such change would “fundamentally alter” the nature of their services. The 11th Circuit upheld the regulation and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Department of Justice, who has been directed by Congress to issue Title II regulations, has advocated that unnecessary institutionalization is discrimination based on disability. The State had argued that LC and EW were not discriminated on the basis of disability because they were not denied community-based treatment on the account of their disability and also that they were not subject to discrimination because they did not identify similarly situated individuals given preferential treatment. Rather, the Court recognizes that the intention behind the ADA was more comprehensive to not only prohibit discrimination, but also considers unjustified segregation to be a form of discrimination. Reasons why institutionalization is not desired: 1. In

unjustified segregation, “institutional placement of persons who can handle and benefit from community settings perpetuates unwarranted assumptions that persons so isolated are incapable or unworthy of participating in community”. We perpetuate negative stereotypes that people who are disabled belong confined to an institution. 2. Confinement to an institution severely diminishes the value of life. (Charles’s 3rd reason: Makes individuals with disabilities more vulnerable to discrimination and abuse in society.) The State’s responsibility is limited though. The reasonable-modifications regulation enables States to resist change if such change would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or if such change is inequitable given the resources of the State. The dissent argued that the evidence of discrimination is not sufficient and also that the State has discretion in instituting their own cost analysis for the allocation of health care resources. Comments: The interpretation of discrimination is interpreted broadly, which I agree with. As argued in the dissent of Sutton v. United Airlines, the ADA should be interpreted to overprotect individuals with disabilities, rather than opting for the option of underprotecting. Community-based homes are less restrictive, group homes with employees who help individuals with the mental disabilities.  Costs defense: transitioning costs, high cost because of having both an institution and a community care  Alajos Kiss case: legal procedures are put into place for individuals with disabilities, however, certain deprivations of rights are not justified even with the consideration of the disability o They, nonetheless, have a right to be in the community Lecture Notes: Buck v. Bell  Virginia statute that sexually sterilized inmates of institutions  To prevent “degenerate offspring” and “to prevent our being swamped with incompetence”  Example of long history of discrimination of seeing individuals with mental or intellectual disabilities as a burden, a danger  Lack of a connection and exposure to society makes individuals more vulnerable to abuse, intolerance, and discrimination...