Lane v. Kitzhaber
2012 WL 3322680, 283 F.R.D. 587, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118152 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A class of individuals with diverse disabilities may be certified under FRCP 23 when they challenge a system-wide policy or practice that results in a common injury, such as unnecessary segregation, even if the class members have varying individual needs and circumstances.
Facts:
- Eight individuals in Oregon with intellectual or developmental disabilities (I/DD), including Paula Lane, were qualified to receive employment services from the state's Department of Human Services (DHS).
- Oregon's DHS plans, funds, and administers employment services for adults with I/DD through two primary models: segregated 'sheltered workshops' and integrated 'supported employment services.'
- Sheltered workshops are facilities that primarily employ people with disabilities, pay sub-minimum wages, and offer little to no interaction with non-disabled peers.
- Supported employment services provide individualized assistance, such as job coaching, to help people with I/DD obtain and maintain jobs in community-based settings alongside non-disabled coworkers at or above minimum wage.
- Seven of the eight individual plaintiffs worked in segregated sheltered workshops, while one was unemployed after having previously worked in one.
- The plaintiffs expressed a preference for receiving supported employment services to work in integrated community settings but alleged that Oregon's system disproportionately funneled them into segregated workshops.
- Oregon had an official 'Employment First Policy' that prioritized integrated employment as the first and preferred option for individuals with I/DD.
- Despite this policy, plaintiffs alleged that the state failed to effectively implement it, leading to an over-reliance on segregated workshops and denying them meaningful access to integrated employment.
Procedural Posture:
- Eight individuals with I/DD and the organization United Cerebral Palsy of Oregon sued several Oregon state officials in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
- Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification under FRCP 23, seeking to represent a class of all individuals with I/DD in Oregon who are in, or have been referred to, sheltered workshops and are qualified for supported employment services.
- Defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed class lacked the required commonality and typicality.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a group of individuals with diverse intellectual and developmental disabilities satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements for class certification under FRCP 23 when they challenge a state's systemic policies and funding decisions that allegedly result in their unnecessary segregation in sheltered workshops, in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Magistrate Judge Stewart
Yes. A group of individuals with diverse disabilities can satisfy the requirements for class certification when challenging a state's systemic policies that allegedly cause a common injury of unnecessary segregation. The commonality requirement of FRCP 23(a) is met because the lawsuit challenges a system-wide practice that affects all class members, even if their individual disabilities and service needs differ. The Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes is distinguishable, as this case involves a challenge to a common policy of segregation under the ADA, not a Title VII claim requiring proof of discriminatory intent arising from thousands of individual discretionary decisions. The common contention—that Oregon's system unnecessarily segregates individuals with I/DD in violation of the ADA's integration mandate—is capable of class-wide resolution and will generate a common answer central to the validity of each claim. Typicality is also satisfied because the named plaintiffs, like the class members, allege the same injury of unnecessary segregation stemming from the same systemic failure to provide adequate supported employment services. Finally, injunctive relief under FRCP 23(b)(2) is appropriate because a single order could modify the state's system-wide conduct regarding the planning, funding, and administration of employment services to provide class-wide access to integrated settings.
Analysis:
This decision affirms the continued viability of class action lawsuits for challenging systemic discrimination under the ADA's integration mandate, even after the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes tightened the commonality standard. The court's analysis distinguishes ADA segregation claims from Title VII discrimination claims, reasoning that a common policy causing a uniform injury (segregation) provides the 'glue' necessary for class certification. This case provides a critical framework for future disability rights litigation, demonstrating that challenges to systemic failures in public services can proceed on a class-wide basis by focusing on the defendants' uniform policies and the common injury they inflict, rather than on the class members' individual circumstances.
Unlock the full brief for Lane v. Kitzhaber