Olmstead v' L'C', 527 U'S' 581 1999

1
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999)

• Two women voluntarily entered a state hospital
  for individuals with cognitive impairments
  (mental retardation and/or mental illness) to
  receive treatment.
• They were declared fit to return to community,
  were not allowed to leave because the state
  declared there were no appropriate supports
  available for them in the community.
• They sued the state arguing that Title II of the
  ADA prohibits a public entity from discriminating
  against qualified persons with disabilities.
• The term "discrimination" includes the failure of
  a public entity to administer its programs in the
  most integrated setting appropriate to the needs
  of qualified individuals with disabilities.
• Further, a public entity must make reasonable
  modifications to it policies and practices unless
  such measures would fundamentally alter the
  nature of the public entity's program.

2
Olmstead Issue

• Does the nondiscrimination mandate (under Title
  II) require placement of persons with
  disabilities in community settings rather than in
  institutions in certain circumstances, in order
  to achieve the "integration" requirement?

3
Olmstead Holding/Ruling

• Qualified YES. Unnecessary institutionalization
  violates civil rights of people with disabilities
• States are required to make reasonable
  modifications in order to serve people in the
  community when
• The individual desires to live in a community
  setting
• The states treatment professionals determine
  community placement is appropriate and
• The placement can be reasonably accommodated,
  considering the resources available to the state
  and the needs of others receiving services from
  the state.

4
Olmstead Reasoning

• Supremes show deference to Department of Justice
  regulations 1) unjustified placement or
  retention of persons in institutions constitutes
  discrimination by reason of disability under
  Title II and 2) reasonable modifications to
  programs/services required.
• Looks to purpose behind ADA passage and statutory
  language.
• Modifies the Court of Appeals construction of
  reasonable modification regulation to provide
  State some defense to obligation to immediately
  find placements in the community.
• Opines that states have obligation to administer
  services with an even hand and may consider
  resources available and the range of services
  required for others in State.