Summary of the United States Supreme Court's Decision in Olmstead v. L.C.
Barry C. Taylor Legal Advocacy Director, Equip for Equality, Inc.
The Integration Mandate of the ADA
When Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), it found that the isolation and segregation of people with disabilities is a serious and pervasive form of discrimination. Following the passage of the ADA, the Department of Justice issued regulations requiring state and local governments to administer their programs in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of people with disabilities. The regulations also require that public entities make reasonable modifications to their programs.
The Facts of the Olmstead Case
Two women with mental retardation and mental illness were patients at a state-operated hospital in Georgia. Although state treatment professionals for both women had deemed them appropriate for community-based placements, both remained institutionalized. They filed suit under Title II of the ADA alleging that the state had violated the ADA's integration mandate.
The Supreme Court's Decision
1. Unwarranted Institutionalization Violates the ADA:
The Supreme Court found that the unwarranted institutionalization of people with disabilities is a form of discrimination that is actionable under the ADA. The Court explained that segregation perpetuates unjustified assumptions that institutionalized persons are incapable or unworthy of participating in community life, and also found that institutional confinement severely diminishes individuals' everyday life activities, including family relations, social contacts, work, educational advancement and cultural enrichment.
2. Three Factors Required for Community Placements:
The Court ruled that the ADA requires States to serve people with disabilities in community settings, rather than in segregated institutions, when three factors are present:
- treatment professionals determine community placement is appropriate;
- the person does not oppose community placement; and
- the placement can be reasonably accommodated taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others who are receiving State-supported services.
3. The State's Obligations Under Olmstead:
The Court ruled that a State can meet its obligations under Olmstead if it has a comprehensive, effectively working plan for evaluating and placing people with disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moves at a reasonable pace and which is not controlled by the State's endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated. The Court did not require States to allocate new money to meet its obligations. In fact, the Court emphasized that since 1981, Medicaid has provided funding for state-run home and community-based care through a waiver program. Finally, the Court's ruling includes individuals who have not been institutionalized, but are at risk of institutionalization due to a lack of community services.
