District of Columbia Olmstead and Olmstead Related Cases, 2013
map of District of Columbia title=District of Columbia

Updated May 2013

The Center for PAS has tracked 3 Olmstead related case(s) in District of Columbia.

This information is extracted from the "Olmstead and Olmstead-Related Lawsuits" table in the "Introduction to Olmstead Lawsuits and Olmstead Plans" report published on the center for PAS website.

District of Columbia: Evans & US v. Fenty 76-CV-00293

Date filed:

1976

Case status:

Settlement (2001)

Primary Target group:

MR/DD

Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f):

Related

References:

2, 44

Class action:

Yes

US DOJ participation (type of participation):

No

Summary:

Class action asking the court to implement the HCBS waiver program & put class members in a less restrictive setting, & alleging the district was in contempt because it failed to provide timely payment to group home service providers.

Progress:

Settlement (includes the creation of a non-profit corporation to provide lay advocacy, legal services & support to ensure greater protections for all people with MR/DD a). Despite a settlement, there has been a history of noncompliance from the District. In 1978, the Court entered a consent decree pursuant to which defendants agreed that plaintiffs' constitutional rights had been violated and that they would take certain actions to remedy those violations. A series of consent orders and remedial plans followed in which defendants admitted that they were still violating class members' constitutional rights and agreed to take additional actions to remedy those constitutional violations. The last such consent order and remedial plan was entered into in 2001, when the parties jointly agreed to a Plan for Compliance, pursuant to which defendants could demonstrate compliance with the Court's orders and terminate the litigation. In 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to find defendants in noncompliance and to appoint a receiver. On March 30, 2007, the Court granted that motion in part, concluding, based on extensive factual findings, that there had been "systemic, continuous, and serious noncompliance with many of the Court's Orders." The Special Masters' Report and Recommendation, which concludes that, as of December 2008, defendants were still in noncompliance with the Court's orders and recommends the appointment of an "Independent Compliance Administrator" to bring the report and ask that the Court adopt the findings of the Special Masters and their recommended remedy. The District filed, after the Special Masters concluded their proceedings in January 2009, to vacate all consent orders and to dismiss the entire case. Judge Huvelle denied the District's motion to dismiss in an opinion issued on April 7, 2010. On June 1, 2010, Judge Huvelle rejected the District's objections to the 2009 Special Masters report. In her memorandum opinion, she adopted their recommended findings of fact and conclusions of law. It further stated that the plaintiffs are entitled to remedial relief to ensure that the defendants achieve compliance.

To read the memorandum opinion denying the defendants' objections to the Special Masters report, go to:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:1976cv00293/25275/1191/0.pdf

To read the memorandum opinion denying the defendants' motion to vacate and dismiss, go to:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:1976cv00293/25275/1176/0.pdf

To read a news article about the recent decision, go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/18/AR2009121803903.html

To read the 2009 Special Masters report and recommendations, go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/evansreport.pdf

District of Columbia: Day v. District of Columbia 10-CV-02250

Date filed:

2010

Case status:

Open

Primary Target group:

Physical Disability

Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f):

Olmstead

References:

45

Class action:

No

US DOJ participation (type of participation):

No

Summary:

Plaintiffs allege that DC violates the ADA and Section 504 by segregating people with disabilities in nursing facilities and failing to provide supports and services that would enable them to live in integrated, community-based settings.

Progress:

The case is currently before the U.S. District Court the District of Columbia.

For a Feb 2012 update on the case from University Legal Services, go to:
http://www.uls-dc.org/Day%20v.%20DC%20moves%20forward%20flier%202.15.12.pdf

To read the memorandum opinion by Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle from February 2012 go to:
http://www.uls-dc.org/DAY%20DECISION.FEB%2014%202012.pdf

To read the complaint, go to: http://www.uls-dc.org/Day-2520v.-2520Fenty.pdf

District of Columbia: Dey et al. v. District of Columbia, et al. 10-CV-02250-ESH

Date filed:

2010

Case status:

Open

Primary Target group:

Physical Disability

Case Type (Olmstead e or Related f):

Olmstead

References:

45

Class action:

No

US DOJ participation (type of participation):

Yes (Support brief)

Summary:

The United States filed a Statement of Interest on October 3, 2011 opposing the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. The pending lawsuit alleges that the District of Columbia violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by unnecessarily segregating individuals with disabilities in nursing facilities.

To view the statement of interest filed by the United States, go to:
http://www.ada.gov/briefs/day_interest_br_10-3-11.pdf

Choose Another State

Select from map or list: