University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Frederick L. v. Dept. of Public Welfare PB-PA-0006
Docket / Court 2:00-cv-04510 ( E.D. Pa. )
State/Territory Pennsylvania
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Public Benefits / Government Services
Special Collection Olmstead Cases
Attorney Organization NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Case Summary
On September 5, 2000, a group of individuals with serious mental disabilities who were institutionalized as Norristown State Hospital ("NSH") filed suit against Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and Pennsylvania's Secretary of Public Welfare under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ... read more >
On September 5, 2000, a group of individuals with serious mental disabilities who were institutionalized as Norristown State Hospital ("NSH") filed suit against Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and Pennsylvania's Secretary of Public Welfare under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 42 U.S.C. §1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs, represented by public services counsel, asked the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that because they were qualified and prepared for community-based services, their continued institutionalization violated the anti-discrimination and integration mandates of the ADA Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

On July 23, 2001, the Court (Judge Schiller) denied the defendants' motion to dismiss in part, allowing the plaintiffs to continue to pursue the Rehabilitation Act claims against both defendants, and the ADA and 1983 claims against the Secretary.

Following a three-day bench trial in May 2002, on September 5, 2002, the District Court (Judge Schiller) issued a memorandum opinion in favor of the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the requested relief because it would have required a fundamental alteration of the Commonwealth's programming and budgetary allocations.

The plaintiffs subsequently appealed. On April 13, 2004, the Third Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further evaluation of the state's fundamental alteration defense.

On September 1, 2004, after reconsidering the defendants' defense, the district court (Judge Schiller) entered judgment in favor of defendants and closed the case. The Court found that the Commonwealth had in place a satisfactory "Olmstead Plan."

Kunyi Zhang - 03/12/2011


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Medicaid
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
FEATHER O. HOUSTOUN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WELFARE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff Description A group of individuals with serious mental illnesses who were residents of a state-run psychiatric hospital.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status outcome Granted
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Filed 09/05/2000
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Review of the Use of Monitors in Civil Settlement Agreements and Consent Decrees Involving State and Local Government Entities
U.S. Department of Justice
Date: 9/13/2021
By: Attorney General Merrick Garland and Assoc. AG Vanita Gupta (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Court Docket(s)
E.D. Pa.
09/26/2006
2:00−cv−04510
PB-PA-0006-9000.pdf | Detail
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
E.D. Pa.
07/23/2001
Opinion and Order (Motion to Dismiss Granted in part) [ECF# 21] (157 F.Supp.2d 509)
PB-PA-0006-0002.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Google Scholar
E.D. Pa.
09/05/2002
Memorandum and Order (Judgment in Favor of Defendant in part) [ECF# 62] (217 F.Supp.2d 581)
PB-PA-0006-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: Google Scholar
U.S. Court of Appeals
04/13/2004
3rd Circuit Opinion (364 F.3d 487)
PB-PA-0006-0001.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
E.D. Pa.
09/01/2004
Memorandum and Order (Judgment in favor of Defendants) [ECF# 76] (2004 WL 1945565)
PB-PA-0006-0004.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Source: Westlaw
show all people docs
Judges Hart, Jacob P. (E.D. Pa.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
PB-PA-0006-9000
Schiller, Berle M. (E.D. Pa.) show/hide docs
PB-PA-0006-0002 | PB-PA-0006-0003 | PB-PA-0006-0004 | PB-PA-0006-9000
Sloviter, Dolores Korman (Third Circuit) show/hide docs
PB-PA-0006-0001
Plaintiff's Lawyers Meek, Robert W. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
PB-PA-0006-9000
Murphy, Mark J. (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
PB-PA-0006-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Tesoro, Claudia M (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
PB-PA-0006-9000
Ulan, Howard (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
PB-PA-0006-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -