On April 27, 2012, residents at a state-run facility for women with developmental disabilities filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the women in their facility in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), ...
read more >
On April 27, 2012, residents at a state-run facility for women with developmental disabilities filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of the women in their facility in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504") against the state of New Jersey. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for various forms of injunctive relief, claiming that the state was in violation of the ADA, Section 504, the Medicaid Act, and plaintiffs' substantive due process rights. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that discharges or transfers were being forced upon plaintiffs without their consent, or the consent of their guardians or families; that plaintiffs were being discharged from the Vineland Developmental Center to other settings in violation of Section 504's mandate that the state implement its services and programs in "the most integrated setting appropriate" to meet plaintiffs' needs; that defendants have not met plaintiffs' needs under their multidisciplinary plans according to the Medicaid Act; and that plaintiffs' substantive due process rights were being violated by placing plaintiffs in other settings, subjecting them to an increased likelihood of injury and death from abuse, neglect, error, and lack of appropriate services.
On March 19, 2013, the Court (District Judge Renée Marie Bumb) granted the State's motion to dismiss, stating only that it was granting the motion for "the reasons stated at oral argument." No transcript of the proceeding is available. The Court allowed plaintiffs 45 days to file an amended complaint.
However, on May 2, 2013, plaintiffs asked the Court to grant a voluntary dismissal. The plaintiffs stated that they would "wait until the inevitable harm by the State becomes more evident and imminent," and that they would "seek to restart or to revive this litigation when appropriate." The Court granted plaintiffs' request and dismissed the action on May 6, 2013.Dan Whitman - 09/19/2014