University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name American Council of the Blind v. Astrue DR-CA-0003
Docket / Court 3:05-cv-04696 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Public Benefits / Government Services
Attorney Organization NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Case Summary
On November 16, 2005, a group of visually impaired recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), along with a national nonprofit comprised of the visually impaired, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern ... read more >
On November 16, 2005, a group of visually impaired recipients of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), along with a national nonprofit comprised of the visually impaired, filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment under Bivens. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the defendant, the Social Security Administration ("SSA"), consistently refused to communicate with visually impaired beneficiaries through reasonably accessible means. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that such conduct deprived blind people of equal access to information necessary to maintaining benefits and therefore constituted unlawful discrimination.

On April 23, 2008, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup denied the defendants' motion to dismiss and requested further briefing regarding how the court should proceed. 2008 WL 1858928. Holding that §504 of the Rehabilitation Act trumped the special-notice provisions, the court found that Congress intended to improve notice to blind recipients when it passed the special notice provision. Both parties requested to continue litigating the claims on a class-wide basis, as opposed to staying the case to give the SSA time to amend its rules and policies to conform with that holding. In a May 13, 2008 order, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ due process claims. 2008 WL 2050852.

On September 11, 2008, the court certified two classes. Though both of these classes consisted of individuals with visual impairments who needed materials in an accessible format to participate in Social Security programs, one class was comprised of applicants and beneficiaries, and the other was comprised of representative payees.

On October 20, 2009, the court granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs after a bench trial, finding that the plaintiffs had not proven a class-wide violation of due process, but had proven a class-wide violation of the Rehabilitation Act's §504 and §85.51. Because the SSA had earlier spurned the opportunity for a stay pending rule-making, the Court found that the agency had effectively consented to resolve the case by litigating on a class-wide basis and therefore ordered a class-wide injunction. This order mandated that SSA develop and offer a Braille and a navigable Microsoft Word CD alternative, notify all known visually impaired recipients of these new alternatives, announce these alternatives on their website, train employees to orally communicate this news to the blind, comply in good faith with §85.51 requirements regarding further individual accommodations, and cease limiting benefits to visually impaired recipients without first providing the notice prescribed above. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce this order. 2009 WL 3400686.

On January 22, 2010, the Court amended the compliance schedule to allow the SSA more time to implement the aforementioned order.

On April 16, 2012, the Court informed both parties' counsel that it had received a lengthy letter from a class member regarding alleged violations of the 2009 order; the Court ordered counsel to meet, confer, and advise on how the letter should be addressed. On April 30, 2012, counsel submitted a joint statement identifying most of the class member's complaints as outside the scope of the Court's order or outside the Court's jurisdiction, excepting one standard-print letter that should have been sent in Braille. The SSA agreed to resend that particular letter in Braille, and the class member was instructed to inform class counsel if further violations of the Court's order occurred.

The docket does not show any subsequent activity. The case is presumed closed.

Timothy Shoffner - 06/01/2012
Saeeda Joseph-Charles - 11/16/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
SSDI
SSI
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Reasonable Accommodation
Reporting
Disability
Visual impairment
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Government Services (specify)
Reasonable Accommodations
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Bivens
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Defendant(s) Social Security Administration
Plaintiff Description Recipients of Supplemental Social Security Income payments from Social Security whose visual impairment substantially limits their ability to see such that they need materials to be in an accessible format in order to participate in these programs.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration 2010 - 2011
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Unknown
Docket(s)
3:05−cv−04696 (N.D. Cal.) 05/01/2012
DR-CA-0003-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 11/16/2005
DR-CA-0003-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order: (1) Denying Motions to Dismiss in Part and (2) Requesting Further Briefing 04/23/2008 (2008 WL 1858928) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0003-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Denying 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss] 05/13/2008 (2008 WL 2050852 / 2008 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 120564) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0003-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 06/18/2008
DR-CA-0003-0002.pdf | Detail
Order [Granting Motion for Class Certification In Part] 09/11/2008 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0003-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law After Bench Trial 10/20/2009 (2009 WL 3400686) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0003-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Amending Compliance Schedule and Vacating Hearing] 01/22/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0003-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Order Amending Compliance Schedule and Vacating Hearing 04/02/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0003-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Statement Regarding Letter from Class Member 04/30/2012
DR-CA-0003-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Alsup, William Haskell (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0003-0001 | DR-CA-0003-0003 | DR-CA-0003-0004 | DR-CA-0003-0005 | DR-CA-0003-0006 | DR-CA-0003-0007 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Chen, Edward Milton (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
DR-CA-0003-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Brand, Esta Lynne (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Cardoso, Denise Marieiro (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Crosby, Peter J. (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Cummings, Larisa M. (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-0008 | DR-CA-0003-0009 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Finberg, Jeanne (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Foster, Jacob Nathaniel (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Haq, Adil (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Jenkins, Sara E. (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Kumar, Ruhi (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Lanvers, Charlotte L. (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0003-0008 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Lu, Jennifer C. (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Mayerson, Arlene Brynne (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-0008 | DR-CA-0003-0009 | DR-CA-0003-9000
McIntyre, Gerald Andrew (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Miller, Ann Kathleen (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Rosen, Catherine Picard (California)
DR-CA-0003-0009 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Russell, Wondie (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-0009 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Su, Henry C. (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Wang, Marilee Chan (California)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Wilde, Kathleen L. (Oregon)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Yee, Silvia (California)
DR-CA-0003-0002 | DR-CA-0003-0009 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Edney, Marsha S. (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0003-0008 | DR-CA-0003-9000
La Morte, Tara Marie (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Riess, Daniel Martin (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0003-9000
Risner, Scott (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0003-0008 | DR-CA-0003-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -