Please...Don't shoot the messenger!!!
[;s>
-----Original Message-----
From: Majordomo List Server [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Stephanie Thomas
Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 3:20 PM
To: micasa-list
Subject: Olmstead briefs supporting most integrated setting...
that info is available from the Bazelon web site...
To find the ADAPT, TASH and NCIL brief go to ADAPT's website
http://www.adapt.org Look in the Updates and Bullitens section!
For others check out Bazelon...
Olmstead v. L.C. Updated March 22, 1988
>From the Bazelon web site... http://www.bazelon.org/olmstead.html
****** L.C. and E.W.'s ("respondents'") brief to the Supreme Court,
written by
Michael Gottesman of Georgetown University Law School and Atlanta Legal
Aid
attorneys Susan Jamieson and Steven Caley. Professor Gottesman will
argue
the case on April 21. In addition to countering the petitioner's
(Georgia's)
argument point by point, the brief describes the state's historic
resistance
to the national trend of shifting services for people with mental
disabilities from institutions to the community. It documents the
reasons LC
and EW were kept in the state hospital long after the state's own
treatment
professionals had urged their placement in the community: not cost
considerations but "incompetence and lack of knowledge," "the heavy
lobbying
of unions representing employees in institutions," and "the
self-interest of
the officials who run these institutions, who are reluctant to surrender
their turf." [PDF format ]
*******The Solicitor General's brief for the United States as friend of the
court
addresses each of Georgia's arguments, including the state's contention
that
discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of services
does
not apply when a service is offered only to people with disabilities.
The
brief documents that Congress, when enacting the ADA, specifically
recognized that the segregation of people with disabilities in
institutions,
by stigmatizing them and depriving them of access to public services
enjoyed
by others, itself has discriminatory effects of the precise type banned
in
the ADA. [PDF format ] [HTML format]
*****An amicus brief by former United States Attorney General Dick
Thornburgh and
the National Organization on Disability. As Attorney General from 1988
to
1991, Thornburgh oversaw congressional debate and passage of the
Americans
with Disabilities Act and issued its implementing regulations, including
the
rule spelling out the integration mandate. His brief documents Congress'
intent to prohibit, as discriminatory, the unnecessary segregation of
people
with disabilities and, taking issue with Georgia's position in the case,
describes as "consistent" the Justice Department's interpretation of the
integration rule.[ PDF format ] [HTML format]
*****An amicus brief by 58 former commissioners and directors of
mentalhealth and
developmental disabilites, representing 36 state. In addition to an
analysis
of fiscal issues, the brief discusses some of the local economic and
political interests that have perpetuated states' segregation of people
with
mental disabilities in institutions— "precisely the social ill the ADA
and
the integration mandate were meant to correct." These interests, the
brief
says, include "influential state legislators whose constituents' jobs or
profits depend on institutions," labor unions that "have often
stridently
resisted state efforts to move to community care in order to protect...
members' jobs," and local residents responding to stereotypes about
mental
disability with a "not in my back yard" objection to the inclusion of
group
homes in a community—an objection the Supreme Court found impermissible
in a
1985 case involving a Texas group home. [ PDF format ] [HTML format]
****** A brief by 30 national organizations and seven Georgia groups
examines the
history of segregation of and discrimination against people with
disabilities and documents the proven benefits of their inclusion in the
community. Those signing the brief include broad-based national groups
such
as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and Catholic
Charities
U.S.A., as well as leading professional associations and disability
advocates. This brief, authored by the law firm of Howrey & Simon and
the
Bazelon Center, reviews the history of institutional segregation of
people
with disabilities and the professional literature that "overwhelmingly
confirms" that those "who are placed in community settings can develop
fuller, more enjoyable lives in ways non-disabled persons take for
granted,
but which are essentially impossible to achieve in an institution—they
attend movies, go shopping, enjoy parks and recreation, and visit
friends."
Pointing out that the 11 states supporting Georgia's appeal "do so even
though many of their own state statutes take a contrary position," the
brief
examines some specific state policies. [PDF format ] [HTML format]
****** A brief by 10 organizations of activist consumers/survivors
(consumers of
mental health services and survivors of psychiatric illness) and eight
individual consumers/survivors who have experienced both institutional
and
community mental health services and now live successfully in the
community.
Through their personal accounts, the brief describes the various types
of
community services available as a result of the integration mandate and
details how access to these services has enabled formerly
institutionalized
individuals to become productive members of society. [PDF format ] [HTML
format]
*********A brief by grassroots organizations of Americans with disabilities,
including an organization started in 1974 as People First and now known
as
Self-Advocates Becoming Empowered. Three fourths of the neatly 20,000
active
members "were once segregated into institutions and now are not," states
the
brief written by the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. The
groups
"write to put before the Court desegregation as they have experienced
it,
the weight of the invidious history as they have suffered it, and a
sense of
the freedom and responsibility of citizenship as they now live it." [PDF
format ] [HTML format]
*******A link to the brief of the National Council on Disability, the
independent
federal agency that played a lead role in drafting the legislation
ultimately enacted as the ADA and has monitored its implementation in
the
eight years since. Citing the council's participation in development of
the
law, the brief concludes that "it would have protested vehemently" had
there
been "even a hint that Title II would not prohibit" unnecessary
institutionalization. "But there was no such hint," it states, and the
council "was quite comfortable lending its unequivocal support."
******** A link to the brief of the American Civil Liberties Union, which
likens
discrimination against people with disabilities to racial and other
forms of
discrimination. On the ACUL site: www.aclu.org/court/olmsteadvlc.html
********A link to the brief of the American Psychiatric Association and the
National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, which takes the position that, while
institutional care may be appropriate for some individuals with mental
illness, it is discriminatory to deprive those wo do not need it of the
benefits of community integration. The brief will be on www.nami.org.
A link to the amicus brief of three national organizations of people
with
disabilities: ADAPT, the National Council on Independent Living and
TASH.
A link to the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit,
which found "little question that the plain language of [the regulation]
prohibits a state from providing services to individuals with
disabilities
in an unsegregated setting."
Amicus Brief in the 11th Circuit
Bazelon Home Page
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law - [log in to unmask]
NATIONAL ADAPT MAILING LIST - Adapt MiCASA List of Adapt Organizers.
|
