Press Release - For Immediate Release
Victory for Institutionalized Californians:
Disability Civil Rights Lawsuit to Proceed as Class Action
San Francisco, September 25 - 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.
Court Dismisses Opposition's Arguments
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 <http://www.pai-ca.org/advocacy/cpfvdds/index.htm>
Source: http://www.pai-ca.org <http://www.pai-ca.org/>