Legal Highlights

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Right of Court Access under the ADA

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in a case challenging Congress' authority to hold states liable for disability discrimination. In Tennessee v. Lane, the Court ruled that states are subject to ADA lawsuits when people with disabilities seek to enforce their rights to gain access to the courts.

The plaintiffs were denied access because the judicial proceedings were held in inaccessible courtrooms. One plaintiff, George Lane, was arrested by the state when he failed to appear at a court hearing after refusing to crawl or be carried up the steps. The State of Tennessee argued that states are immune from suits under Title II of the ADA.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court found that, when the ADA was passed, Congress identified a sufficient history of discrimination by states to justify holding states liable for failing to provide access to the courts.

The Court's decision is heartening because it previously ruled that states were immune from suit in ADA employment discrimination cases. Since Lane is limited to access to the courts, it will be important to watch how lower courts interpret this decision in other ADA cases brought against the states.

Federal Cases

Sisters Seek Inclusive Setting in School

Kerry and Kristine M. are 13-year-old twins with Rett Syndrome, a genetic developmental disorder. They have severe physical disabilities, use wheelchairs and are non-verbal, relying on augmentative devices to communicate. Like other girls their age, they enjoy going to Navy Pier, eating at restaurants, swimming, horse riding, shopping for clothes and listening to music.

The girls' entire school careers have been spent at the United Cerebral Palsy School in Joliet where they have no contact with non-disabled peers and receive very little educational programming. They were placed at the school by defendants Manhattan School District #114 and Lincoln-Way Area Special Education Cooperative.

When their mother sought to move them to a public school where they could interact with non-disabled peers and partake in many educational and artistic opportunities, the defendants refused the request. Equip for Equality attorneys Howard Rosenblum and Debra Wysong represented the girls and their mother at a due process hearing, where they challenged the defendants' refusal. Unfortunately, the hearing officer, applying an incorrect legal standard and ignoring expert testimony, found that the girls must continue at their current school.

Equip for Equality filed a complaint in federal court, challenging the hearing officer's decision and alleging that the defendants violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). The complaint added the Illinois State Board of Education as a defendant, based on its failure to adequately train hearing officers about IDEA's least restrictive environment provisions and to enforce the provisions in local school districts. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Firefighter Removed From Duty Seeks Reinstatement

David Mark Wozniak, a firefighter with the City of Aurora Fire Department, was hired in 1978 and was diagnosed with diabetes in 1982. From 1995 to 2002, the Fire Department imposed unnecessary restrictions on Wozniak's blood sugar monitoring, discouraged him from monitoring his blood sugar as often as was appropriate, and permitted other employees to harass him based on his diabetes. Despite these hurdles, Wozniak continued to perform well in his position.

In February of 2002, the Fire Department fired Wozniak, citing a single incident, in which Wozniak had experienced hypoglycemia, as evidence that he was a safety risk. On that occasion, Wozniak had immediately and independently taken action (eating) to raise his blood sugar level, and no one, including Wozniak, was harmed or at risk of harm. Nevertheless, the Fire Department seized upon the incident to conclude that Wozniak was in a "category" that prevented him from serving as a firefighter.

In the federal complaint filed by Equip for Equality, Wozniak claims that the Fire Department's actions of denying him reasonable accommodations and then firing him based on his disability discriminated against him in violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act. He seeks a return to duty, back pay and damages. In the filing, Wozniak stated: "I want to go back to work for the City of Aurora taxpayers, doing the job that I know and love, and that I am fully capable of performing. I also want to put an end to this unfair and discriminatory policy." The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

STATE CASES

Mother Seeks to Regain Custody of Son

Catherine Marsh is a mother with a disability who is seeking to regain custody of her young son. She is appealing a Probate Court order awarding custody of the boy to his grandmother, who is Marsh's mother. The Probate Court entered the custody order without holding a hearing. The case raises many important issues, including the rights of parents to raise their children, the effect of a temporary guardianship over a parent with a disability on her right to raise children, the rights of children to be raised by their parents and the intersection of the Illinois Probate Act and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Equip for Equality attorney Barry Lowy is representing Marsh. The parties are currently briefing the case for the Appellate Court, Fourth District.

DHS Refuses to Admit Man to CILA; Case Has Systemic Impact

In an important decision that will have systemic impact, a state appellate court overturned the State of Illinois' denial of community disability services to Bradley Tinder, a 30-year-old man with cerebral palsy. Mr. Tinder had been residing in a nursing home for over five years and wanted to move into a Community Integrated Living Arrangement (CILA), a program that promotes independence for people with developmental disabilities.

The Illinois Department of Human Services rejected Mr. Tinder's application for CILA, claiming that he was not developmentally disabled and thus not eligible for the program. Represented by Equip for Equality attorney Janet Cartwright, Mr. Tinder appealed the decision to the Illinois Department of Public Aid, which upheld the denial. After a trial court affirmed the administrative decision, Equip for Equality filed an appeal with the Third District Appellate Court.

On appeal, the State argued that, in order to be eligible for CILA services, Mr. Tinder had to have a mental impairment. The Appellate Court rejected the State's position and found in favor of Mr. Tinder on the basis that state law explicitly includes cerebral palsy in the definition of developmental disability, even if no mental impairment is present. The Appellate Court's decision is significant because it will not only benefit Mr. Tinder, but also other people with developmental disabilities who do not have a mental impairment. Many have committed low-level offenses, and it is believed that at least 60 inmates and possibly many more could benefit from the jail's supervised community and treatment programs if they were not excluded because of their disability. More than 100 people with mental illnesses are discharged each month without arrangements for case management or for accessing needed medication.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that the allegations should be combined with two previous class-action suits filed on behalf of inmates with mental illness. Once the courts rule on this motion, Equip for Equality and its co-counsel will move forward seeking to remedy the injustices inmates with mental illness are experiencing.

Subscribe to the Equalizer | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use