Brown v. Dist. of Columbia
928 F.3d 1070 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, once a plaintiff class of disabled individuals establishes they are qualified for and do not oppose community-based care, the burden shifts to the public entity to prove that the requested accommodation is unreasonable. A plaintiff class is not required to prove the existence of a 'concrete, systemic deficiency' in the entity's transition services to establish liability.
Facts:
- The District of Columbia funds both nursing-facility-based and community-based care for individuals with physical disabilities through its Medicaid program.
- Plaintiffs are a class of physically disabled individuals who have resided in District-funded nursing facilities for more than ninety days.
- The Plaintiffs have been deemed eligible for and capable of transitioning to community-based care.
- The Plaintiffs have all expressed a preference to live in the community rather than in a nursing facility.
- Despite their eligibility and preference, the Plaintiffs have remained in institutional nursing facilities.
Procedural Posture:
- Four disabled individuals filed a class-action lawsuit against the District of Columbia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a federal trial court.
- The district court denied the District's motion for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
- The District of Columbia, as petitioner, sought an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which was denied.
- The case proceeded to a nine-day bench trial in the district court.
- Following the liability phase of the trial, the district court entered a final judgment for the defendant, the District of Columbia.
- The Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's final judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The District of Columbia is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), does a plaintiff class seeking integration into community-based care bear the burden of proving a 'concrete, systemic deficiency' in a public entity's transition services to establish a violation?
Opinions:
Majority - Henderson, J.
No. A plaintiff class does not bear the burden of proving a 'concrete, systemic deficiency'; rather, once plaintiffs show they are qualified for and do not oppose community placement, the burden shifts to the public entity to demonstrate that the accommodation is unreasonable. The Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead established that unjustified institutionalization is a form of discrimination. The framework for an Olmstead claim requires plaintiffs to show that community placement is appropriate and not opposed by the individual. The burden then shifts to the State to show that the placement cannot be reasonably accommodated, which constitutes its 'fundamental alteration' defense. A state can meet this burden by either (1) demonstrating it has a 'comprehensive, effectively working plan' for community integration (an 'Olmstead Plan') with a reasonably-paced waiting list, or (2) showing that the specific requested accommodation is so costly it would be inequitable. The district court erred by inventing and imposing a requirement on the Plaintiffs to prove a 'concrete, systemic deficiency,' a standard not found in Olmstead.
Concurring - Wilkins, J.
No. While I agree that the district court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on the Plaintiffs, the majority's rigid application of the Olmstead Plan framework is inappropriate for this case. This case is factually distinct from Olmstead because it is a class action involving plaintiffs who seek private housing, which the District does not control. Therefore, measuring the effectiveness of the District's plan by the pace of its waiting list is unsuitable. The district court was correct to focus on identifying 'concrete, systemic deficiencies' in the District's transition services as a way to define the requested accommodations for the class, but its error was requiring the Plaintiffs to prove their existence. Instead, the burden should have been on the District to prove that its programs do not have such systemic deficiencies as part of its fundamental alteration defense.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the burden-shifting framework in class-action Olmstead claims, making it easier for groups of disabled individuals to challenge unnecessary institutionalization. By rejecting the plaintiff-side burden of proving a 'concrete, systemic deficiency,' the court lowers a significant barrier to bringing such ADA claims. The ruling solidifies that the 'fundamental alteration' defense is an affirmative one that the government must prove, either by showing its integration plan is genuinely effective or that specific requested changes are unreasonable. This will likely encourage public entities to develop more robust and demonstrable community integration plans to defend against such litigation.
