Disability Civil Rights Lawsuit to Proceed as a Class Action
San Francisco, CA - 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.
Background
State 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.
Opposition to Class Certification
Defendants 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 California law and thus based its decision on improper criteria and erroneous legal assumptions." The appellate court noted that "the very nature of this class cries out for a class treatment and a systemic approach" because the people whose rights allegedly have been violated are persons with cognitive or other severe disabilities without resources to undertake the daunting task of seeking relief on their own.
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