The ADA and the Olmstead Decision
Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In addition, the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA contain an “integration mandate” requiring that state and local government agencies provide services “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).
On June 22, 1999, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, that the unjustified segregation or isolation of people with disabilities in institutions can constitute discrimination based on disability in violation of the ADA’s “integration mandate.” In Olmstead, the Court found that the State of Georgia Department of Human Resources violated the ADA by keeping two women with mental health conditions in a state psychiatric hospital long after their treatment professionals recommended their transfer to community-based care and while the State’s home and community based programs had the capacity to serve them. The Supreme Court concluded that under Title II of the ADA States are required to provide community-based treatment for persons with disabilities when the:
- State’s treatment professionals determine that such placement is appropriate;
- Affected persons do not oppose such treatment; and
- Placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities.
Id. at 607.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court expressly recognized the States’ (the District’s) “need to maintain a range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse … disabilities, and the States' obligation to administer services with an even hand” must be taken into account in complying with the ADA. Id. at 597. Further, the Court recognized that “to maintain a range of facilities and to administer services with an even hand, the State must have [more] leeway” than the courts previously understood was allowed under ADA. The Court concluded that one way States could meet their obligations under the ADA’s “integration mandate” is by instituting a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing individuals in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moves at a reasonable pace not controlled by endeavors to keep institutions fully populated. Id. at 606-607. The Olmstead Plan being instituted by the District is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.
Disability Rights Protection Act of 2006
The Disability Rights Protection Act of 2006 (D.C. Code § 2-1431) (DRPA) and Mayor’s Order 2008-06 established the Office of Disability Rights’ authority and responsibility for creating the District’s “Olmstead Compliance Plan.” The Olmstead Compliance Plan is defined as “a comprehensive working plan, developed in collaboration with individuals with disabilities and with District agencies serving individuals with disabilities, which shall include annual legislative, regulatory, and budgetary recommendations for the District to serve qualified individuals with disabilities in accordance with Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, and in the most integrated setting as provided in 28 C.F.R. Part 35, App. A.” The DRPA mandated that, in developing the Olmstead Compliance Plan, the Office of Disability Rights (ODR) would work actively with the District of Columbia Commission on Persons with Disabilities (DCCPD) to ensure that individuals with disabilities, their families, and advocates participated in creating the Plan.