Petition brought by Disability Advocates, Inc. (DAI) claiming violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act’s integration mandate with regards to individuals in New York State’s adult care facilities; Denial of access to supportive housing; Services must be provided in most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of persons with disabilities; Disability-based discrimination; Fundamental alteration defense.
In response to the ruling, New York proposed a plan capping the number of new supported housing units at 1,000. DAI and the U.S. Department of Justice filed briefs citing the proposal as inadequate. On March 1, 2010, the court rejected the State’s proposal, instead ordering that New York develop at least an additional 1,500 additional units of supported housing per year for the next three years. However, New York appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Cuomo. On February 23, 2011, the court issued an order staying the March 2010 order. The United States Court of Appeals (Second Circuit) decided on April 6, 2012 to dismiss the action, as DAI lacked standing and the United States intervention occurred too late in the process. The Court of Appeals stated that it had concerns about the remedy sought, but it also stated that this litigation could continue “inasmuch as the United States [c]ould re-file the action and submit the same evidence at a subsequent trial”.
This District Court decision explicitly stated that the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in L.C. and E.W. v. Olmstead. applies beyond the realm of psychiatric hospitalization. If it had not been vacated, the District Court decision in DAI would have offered adult home residents a potential avenue to leave the home and move towards more integration with the surrounding community. Further, this case was the first of several similar actions in Connecticut and Illinois.