Filed Date: Jan. 6, 2014
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On January 6, 2014, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice sent a findings letter to the attorney general for the State of Rhode Island. The letter reported that the Division's investigation of Rhode Island's educational, vocational, and shelter services for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) found that Rhode Island violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, by "unjustifiably" isolating persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops and facility-based day programs.
On April 8, 2014, the Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the State of Rhode Island under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134. The DOJ asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the defendant discriminated against people with I/DD by failing to provide state services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs and by putting Rhode Island high school students with I/DD at "serious risk of segregation" by failing to inform them of or provide them with state services that would allow them to work in an integrated workplace. The plaintiff further claimed that Rhode Island failed to reasonably modify its delivery of its services to prevent them from causing unnecessary segregation on the basis of disability.
On the same day that the complaint was filed, both parties submitted a proposed consent decree to settle the lawsuit; presumably, they had been engaged in negotiations since the issuance of the January findings letter.
On April 9, 2014, the District Court (Senior Judge Ronald R. Lugueux) approved a consent decree between the parties that would last for ten years. The Decree required ten outcomes by Rhode Island regarding four target populations.
The four target populations included:
(1) Individuals with I/DD that received day activity services in settings where they perform sheltered workshop tasks, “Sheltered Workshop Target Population.”
(2) Individuals with I/DD that received day activity services in facility-based day program settings, “Day Target Population.”
(3) Individuals with I/DD that were transition-age youth attending a Rhode Island secondary school, “Youth Transition Target Population.”
(4) Individuals with I/DD that were transition age youth who exited a Rhode Island secondary school during the 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 school years, “Youth Exit Target Population.”
The ten outcomes stated:
(1) By January 1, 2015, defendant needed to provide all individuals within the Youth Exit Target Population person-centered planning which will result in career development plans.
(2) By October 1, 2014 and September 1 of every following year, defendant needed to provide all individuals within the Youth Transition Target Population with services necessary to introduce them to work in integrated setting.
(3) Defendant needed to engage in an annual person-centered planning process with all individuals within the Youth Transition Target Population.
(4) Defendant needed to cease placement and funding for new entrants to the facility-based day programs.
(5) By January 1, 2015, defendant needed to provide career development plans for all individuals within the Youth Exit Target Population, and by January 1, 2016, defendant must provide career development plans for all individuals within the Sheltered Workshop and Day Program Target Populations.
(6) Defendant needed to institute a program that provides benefits planning information and counseling to all individuals within the Youth Exit, Sheltered Workshop, and Day Program Target Populations within one year of the individuals’ scheduled transition to supported employment placement and integrated day services.
(7) By September 1, 2014, defendant was to issue a direction to ensure that the Supports Intensity Scale assessment process will be administered with the presumption that individuals with the most severe disabilities can work in integrated settings and receive services. Defendant will also ensure the resource allocation decisions are made in a manner consistent with individuals’ support needs.
(8) Annually, the defendant was to provide Support Employment Placements and Integrated Day Services to all individuals within the Rhode Island Youth Exit Target Population, pursuant to year that group left school. Following this, through January 1, 2019, the defendant will annually provide at least fifty additional individuals within the Sheltered Workshop Target Population with the above services. This figure will then increase to at least one hundred additional individuals annually through January 1, 2024.
(9) Annually, the defendant was to provide Support Employment Placements and Integrated Day Services for individuals in the Day Target Population. At least twenty-five additional individuals annually by 2015 and 2016, at least fifty additional individuals annually in 2017 and 2018, at least seventy-five additional individuals in 2019, at least one hundred additional individuals in 2020, at least 200 additional individuals in 2021 and 2022, and at least 225 additional individuals in 2023.
(10) The defendant was to document for continuous review by the court monitor its efforts to provide the target populations Supported Employment Placements and Individual Day Programs.
Over the next year, defendant made progress and initiated programs related to Outcomes 1-10, issuing the required direction in Outcome 7 in October 2014. However, by April 10, 2015, the defendant had not met any of the deadlines or benchmarks required by the consent decree.
The DOJ determined that additional action was necessary for the defendant to come into compliance with the consent decree, and moved for a proposed order on May 6, 2016, which was granted on May 18, 2016. The order required the defendant to
(1) appropriate additional money in the Governor’s budget for the fiscal year 2017,
(2) create a live database to allow for efficient tracking of each member of the target populations,
(3) provide the plaintiff and the court monitor with access to the database or list of database entries by July 29, 2016 to allow the plaintiff and court monitor to verify progress for individuals within the target populations,
(4) comply with all deadlines within the Consent Decree,
(5) supply additional reports regarding progress with the Consent Decree, and
(6) receive a sanction, after a show-cause hearing coordinated by the court, of $5,000 per day for each provision violated, with an additional payment of $100 per day for each member of a target population whose employment or day services are delayed due to the violation, until the violation is remedied. Each ordered sanction was not to exceed $1,000,000 per year.
The defendant met or conditionally met the court order provisions 1, 2, 3, and 5 by July 29, 2016. Evaluation of provision 4 was deferred.
By October 31, 2016, the defendant was meeting or exceeding the supported employment placement benchmarks for the Sheltered Workshop and Day Target Populations. However, it failed to meet a number of the other benchmarks. Youth Exit Target Population supported employment placements were below consent decree requirements. Career Development Planning for all target populations also fell below required benchmarks . The state also had not met all requirements related to various other outcomes. That said, the court monitor reported that the defendant had made progress in the development of required plans and programs to assist in their compliance with the consent decree.
By July 20, 2017, supported employment placement for the Youth Exit and Sheltered Workshop Target Populations fell below their benchmarks, but the Day Target Population greatly exceeded the benchmark. Career development planning and benefits planning for all target populations remained below the required benchmarks. The defendant had not yet met the integrated day services requirements with regard to target populations. Finally, the defendant had not yet reached provider capacity requirements that would enable the ability to provide the required services of the consent decree. While the defendant had not reached all required benchmarks, the court monitor reported that the defendant continued to make significant progress in the development of required plans and programs to assist in reaching compliance.
Two such programs were a sheltered workshop and a facility-based day service provider, both of which were operated by Community Work Services and Birch Academy.
The Court Monitor’s report on October 29, 2018, showed significant improvement since 2017. Career development planning for members of the Birch Look Back Target Population and the TTP Target Population significantly improved over the past year. TTP target population met its benchmark as acceptable career development plans were increased from 42 to 94%. However, the quality of person-centered career development planning did not increase sufficiently since the previous report. The Court Monitor noted that further action was required to improve employment placements and day services to be more personalized and self-directed. The Youth Exit Population met its benchmark.
On February 14, 2019, the Court Monitor also noted that the Governor’s recommended budget for 2020 appeared adequate to meet funding requirements necessary to comply with the Consent Decree.
Judge McConnell appointed Dr. A. Anthony Antosh to replace the Court Monitor on February 28, 2020. Monitoring continued. On March 18, 2020, in light of the COVD-19 public health emergency, the court ordered the Court Monitor to engage in conversations with the State, providers, family advocates, and the DOJ to make recommendations to the Court on orders that could (1) lessen the administrative burden on providers and the State; (2) assist class members and their families in maneuvering the system and securing essential services; (3) any other recommendations the Court Monitor deems appropriate.
The case is still ongoing as monitoring for the consent decree continues.
Summary Authors
Brian Kempfer (4/13/2014)
Cade Boland (10/27/2017)
Averyn Lee (3/21/2019)
Alex Moody (5/29/2020)
L.C. v. Olmstead, Northern District of Georgia (1995)
United States v. Rhode Island and City of Providence, District of Rhode Island (2013)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4380280/parties/united-states-v-state-of-rhode-island/
Lagueux, Ronald Rene (Rhode Island)
McConnell, John James Jr. (Rhode Island)
Sullivan, Patricia A. (Rhode Island)
Romero, Amy Retsinas (Rhode Island)
Thomas, Victoria L (District of Columbia)
Weinstock, Lindsey M. (District of Columbia)
Zeitler, Nicole K. (District of Columbia)
Bond, Rebecca B. (District of Columbia)
DeSisto, Marc (Rhode Island)
Kline, Regina (District of Columbia)
Lagueux, Ronald Rene (Rhode Island)
McConnell, John James Jr. (Rhode Island)
Sullivan, Patricia A. (Rhode Island)
Romero, Amy Retsinas (Rhode Island)
Thomas, Victoria L (District of Columbia)
Weinstock, Lindsey M. (District of Columbia)
Zeitler, Nicole K. (District of Columbia)
Bond, Rebecca B. (District of Columbia)
DeSisto, Marc (Rhode Island)
Kline, Regina (District of Columbia)
Myrus, Richard B. (Rhode Island)
Neronha, Peter F. (Rhode Island)
Moseley, Charles (Vermont)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4380280/united-states-v-state-of-rhode-island/
Last updated Aug. 5, 2022, 3:04 a.m.
State / Territory: Rhode Island
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 6, 2014
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities receiving educational, vocational, and shelter services in Rhode Island
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Attorney Organizations:
U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Availably Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration: 2014 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Issues
General:
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Discrimination-area:
Discrimination-basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Disability:
Mental Disability:
Developmental disability without intellectual disability
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Medical/Mental Health:
Intellectual/Developmental Disability
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Type of Facility:
Benefit Source: