In Brown v. District of Columbia, the firm is co-counsel on behalf of a class of people living in nursing facilities in the District of Columbia, who are challenging the District’s systemic failure to comply with its obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Olmstead v. LC ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999).

In Olmstead, “the United States Supreme Court held that the unjustified segregation of disabled individuals in institutions is a form of disability discrimination barred by federal law.” Brown v. District of Columbia, 928 F.3d 1070, 1072-1073 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “Consequently, the District of Columbia … violates the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) … and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 … if it cares for a mentally or physically disabled individual in a nursing home notwithstanding, with reasonable modifications to its policies and procedures, it could care for that individual in the community.” Ibid.

In this case, the plaintiffs allege that the District of Columbia’s program for transitioning Medicaid beneficiaries from nursing facilities to the community, where they can live a less restricted life, is fundamentally inadequate.

The case was filed in 2010. The District of Columbia prevailed after the 2016 trial, but that decision was reversed by the court of appeals in 2019. The court of appeals explained (928 F.3d at 1084-1085):

The district court has not yet concluded, in clear terms and under the correct burden of proof, that the District’s “Olmstead Plan” is adequate. In fact, the district court has consistently held throughout this litigation that the District does not have an adequate “Olmstead Plan” in place. … In fact, it stated that “[t]he District has little to be proud of regarding its historic inability to comply with Olmstead’s integration mandate.” Thus, the District has not yet demonstrated that it has an adequate “Olmstead Plan” in place and so has not shown that all requested accommodations are categorically unreasonable. The district court is, of course, free to find on remand that the District now has an adequate “Olmstead Plan” in place. [citations and footnotes omitted]

The case was remanded to the district court and in December 2021 the second trial was completed. Since remand, Terris, Pravlik & Millian, LLP, has been representing the plaintiffs, along with lead counsel AARP Foundation, and Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services.

The numerous problems associated with being restricted to a nursing facility have been substantially exacerbated by the COVID health pandemic, which puts staff and residents of nursing facilities at serious risk. Plaintiffs’ counsel addressed this issue in a letter to the District government, which is available here.

☚ Back to Current Civil Rights Cases