|
Protection & Advocacy Inc. Advancing the rights of Californians with disabilities |
|
Press Release – For Immediate Release |
|
Victory for Institutionalized Californians: Disability Civil Rights
Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
|
|
|
San Francisco, September 25 - The Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District handed a significant victory to people with developmental disabilities who are institutionalized throughout California. The court held that the Alameda County Superior Court case—Capitol People First (CPF) v. Department of Developmental Services (DDS)—may proceed as a class action on behalf of more than 7000 individuals who receive services from regional centers and are either living in state or private institutions, or are at risk of institutionalization. PAI managing attorney
Eric Gelber, who argued the appeal, said “the ruling means that even people
with significant disabilities have meaningful access to the courts to
vindicate their rights to live as a part of rather than apart from the
community.” Brad Seligman, executive director
of the Impact Fund, who also participated in the oral arguments, said “the decision is a ringing re-affirmation of the
importance of class actions to challenge broad-based violations of the law.
It reminds lower courts that they must take seriously evidence showing a
pattern of illegal conduct.”
The Impact Fund was one of 15 advocacy organizations participating as amici curiae in support of the
plaintiffs. BackgroundState and federal laws give
people with disabilities the right to live and receive services in integrated
community-based settings, rather than institutions, when their needs can be
met in the less restrictive, community settings. In the early 1990’s, PAI brought a lawsuit
on behalf of people with developmental disabilities who had been recommended
for placement in the community but still remained institutionalized. That class action lawsuit—Coffelt v. DDS—settled and resulted in
the community placement of some 2400 individuals over a 5-year period and many
system reforms. “Pressure was off”After the settlement
period ended, the pace of people moving into the community slowed down even
though, as the Court of Appeal noted in its opinion on September 25, state
officials have said that the vast majority, if not 100% of developmental
center residents could live successfully in the community with appropriate
supports and services. But, as state
witnesses further said, without a court-approved settlement, “the pressure
was off.” This slowdown led to
the filing of the CPF v. DDS lawsuit,
which named DDS, other state agencies, and the state’s 21 regional centers as
defendants. It was filed on behalf of
individual class members and taxpayers as well as organizational plaintiffs
-- Capitol People First, The Arc of California and California Alliance for
Inclusive Communities, Inc. The aim of the lawsuit was to eliminate systemic
policies and practices of the state and regional centers resulting in the
unnecessary institutionalization of thousands of people with developmental
disabilities. Plaintiffs are
represented by PAI, a non-profit disability-rights advocacy agency, and pro bono counsel with Bingham
McCutcheon and DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. Court dismisses opposition's argumentsDefendants opposed
class certification, arguing that because everyone’s needs are individual,
issues over inappropriate institutionalization can only be addressed on an
individual, case-by-case basis.
Defendants and organizational interveners representing family members
of institutionalized individuals also argued that the plaintiffs and their
counsel could not represent the interests of all class members. Trial court judge, Ronald Sabraw, agreed
and denied class certification. In today’s overturning
of Sabraw’s ruling, the appellate court found in clear terms that “the trial
court ignored or misunderstood the guiding principles of Discovery in the case,
which has been stayed while the class certification appeal was pending, will
now proceed and, unless the parties reach a settlement, the case is expected
to go to trial in Fall 2008. Background on the case, including legal documents and press coverage 2002-2006, can be read at www.pai-ca.org/advocacy/cpfvdds/index.htm |
|