Court Finds that Even Homes in the Community Can Fail to Provide the Least Restrictive Environment Required by the ADA.
Last month, the Court of Appeals in Chicago issued an interesting and important decision regarding the so-called “integration mandate” of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case was brought by several individuals with developmental disabilities in Indiana against the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration. The individuals who filed the suit were diagnosed with cerebral palsy, downs syndrome, seizure disorders, and developmental delays. Until 2013, these individuals were served under an Indiana home and community based waiver program that provided unlimited services. Indiana moved these individuals to a different home and community based waiver program that limited services to $16,545 per year.
The individuals claimed that the change in waiver programs and limitation on services reduced their community activities from 40 hours per week to 10 to 12 hours per week. This, they claimed, violated their rights under the ADA. Indiana argued that because these individuals lived in homes in the community, the integration mandate of the ADA did not apply to them, they were already in the community. Indiana asserted that the integration mandate covered only those individuals who have been “institutionalized.” The trial court agreed with the State, and dismissed the individuals’ lawsuit. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the ADA and the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision applied to all individuals with disabilities regardless of where they lived.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Department of Justice ADA regulations required that services, programs and activities must be provided “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs” of individuals with disabilities. The regulations further define the most integrated setting as “as a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” The court noted that these regulations apply “to all settings, not just institutional settings.” According to the court, the ADA “bars unjustified segregation of persons with disabilities, wherever it takes place.” The court rejected Indiana’s argument that the word “setting” refers to a physical structure of which there are two kinds, institutional or community and since the individuals in this case were in homes in the community, the mandate was not violated. The court called this a “crabbed” interpretation, holding that “setting” refers to an environment, not a physical structure.
The court noted that Olmstead dealt only with individuals who had been institutionalized against their will and did not address settings outside the institutional context. However, the court held that Olmstead’s reasoning applies to settings other than institutions. The court stated:
Isolation in a home can just as severely diminish the everyday life activities of people with disabilities.
In fact, although family relations might be enhanced at home if people are around, isolation in a home
may often be worse than confinement to an institution on every other measure of life activities that
Olmstead recognized.
The court added that state “budget cuts can violate the integration mandate” and while states are not obligated to create new services, they services they provide must adhere to the ADA. The court concluded by saying: “we hold that the integration mandate is implicated where the state’s policies have either (1) segregated persons with disabilities within their homes, or (2) put them at serious risk of institutionalization.” It is important to note that the court repeated the Supreme Court’s statement in Olmstead “that there exists no federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.”
I believe that this recent decision is the first in the country that recognizes that even a person’s own home, or a home in the community, can be isolating and segregating, even more so than an “institution.” The decision supports the view that what must be looked at, regardless of physical structure or location, are the services provided in the particular setting. For purposes of the integration mandate, the question is whether the setting in question provides the access to the community that is appropriate for the individual and that the individual desires.
For those who would like to read the entire opinion, here is a link:
Please feel free to contact me at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., if you have any questions or comments.
Scott