The plaintiffs, institutionalized individuals in the District of Columbia with disabilities, filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on December 23, 2010. The complaint alleged that the District of Columbia has policies and procedures that force the unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities who could live in the community with appropriate services. The plaintiffs claimed that these policies, which erect barriers to receiving long-term care and arbitrarily restrict the availability of community-based services, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act's integration mandate (under the precedent of Olmstead v. L.C.) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The plaintiffs filed this complaint in response to the failure of D.C. to develop and implement a working Olmstead plan.

On April 27, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. The defendants claimed that D.C.'s policies were adequate to prevent unnecessary institutionalization and that none of the plaintiffs had demonstrated that his or her institutionalization was a result of the District's policies or that he or she could live in the community. The United States (Department of Justice) filed a brief siding with the Plaintiffs on October 3, 2011.

On February 14, 2010, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle issued an opinion denying, for the most part, the defendant's summary judgment motion. Judge Huvelle agreed to dismiss the individual defendant officials from the case, noting that the claims against them were duplicative of those against the District. But, Judge Huvelle denied the defendants' motion on the substantive claims, finding that the District had no effective plan in place to prevent unnecessary institutionalization. In April 2012, the District of Columbia announced a new Olmstead community integration plan.

In March of 2013, the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint without the named parties. The defendants immediately filed a motion to dismiss. On March 28, 2013, Judge Huvelle granted the plaintiff's class certification as well as denied defendant's motion to dismiss. This prompted renewed litigation in conjunction, including a request for interlocutory appeal on the class certification. The defendants also filed a motion to stay pending the request for interlocutory appeal, and this motion was ultimately denied.

In September of 2015, following months of discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint, and the defendants filed a final motion to dismiss. This motion was again denied.

After trial before Judge Huvelle, the defendants motioned for judgment as a matter of law on October 6, 2016. On September 13, 2017, however, Judge Huvelle found that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate the existence of a concrete, systemic failure that entitled them to class-wide relief and dismissed their class-wide claims. More specifically, Judge Huvelle found that there were both systemic and individualized barriers to transitioning that were beyond the control of the defendants, so a single injunction could not remedy the plaintiffs’ institutionalization.

As the plaintiffs had not sought individual relief, Judge Huvelle entered judgment for the defendants and denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law as moot.

On October 18, 2017, the plaintiffs appealed Judge Huvelle's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. That appeal is pending.

Beth Kurtz - 02/08/2013
Megan Brown - 10/27/2016
Eva Richardson - 11/03/2018


compress summary