Filed Date: March 31, 2016
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 31, 2016, individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. They sued the state of Ohio, including the state's disability departments, under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Social Security Act. The plaintiffs issued a press release on the same day, available here. The case was assigned to Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.
The plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of all patients institutionalized, or at serious risk of institutionalization, at Intermediate Care Facilities (ICF) for individuals with intellectual disabilities, even though they had preferred to reside in an integrated, community-based setting and receive integrated, community-based employment or day services. They claimed that they were experiencing, or were at risk of experiencing, pervasive and widespread isolation and segregation in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C. (along with the listed statutes above). The Ability Center of Greater Toledo also joined the suit as a plaintiff, claiming that it suffered economic injury. The complaint estimated that the class included approximately 27,800 similarly situated individuals.
In the period from May until October, the defendants made several motions to dismiss. On August 22, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to certify the class. On September 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Deavers issued an order regarding discovery, setting a due date of January 31, 2017 for the plaintiffs’ amended motion for class certification.
On March 23, 2017, Judge Sargus issued an opinion and order denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss (except for Governor John Kasich’s motion, which was granted in part and denied in part). 244 F. Supp. 3d 662 (S.D. Ohio 2017). The court rejected the Director of Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities’ argument that the court should dismiss the class action because Disability Rights Ohio (whose attorneys represented the plaintiffs and signed the complaint) was precluded from bringing the action; the court explained that the scope of representation was a collateral issue best left to the governing agency. The court granted in part the Governor’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ ADA and Social Security Act claims and denied in part his motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim. The court rejected the Director of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disability’s claim that a consent decree from a prior case, Martin v. Taft (S.D. Ohio, 2007), and res judicata compelled dismissal; the court explained that this case concerned allegations that arose after Martin. The court also rejected defendants’ arguments concerning justiciability and standing under the Social Security Act.
On March 27, 2017, the court (Judge Sargus) issued an opinion and order granting what it described as the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for class certification. 2017 WL 1148358. The court certified the class as consisting of the following: “All Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio who, on or after March 31, 2016, are institutionalized, or at serious risk of institutionalization, in an Intermediate Care Facility with eight or more beds, and who have not documented their opposit[ion] to receiving integrate[d], community-based services.”
However, on March 30, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to expedite reconsideration of the class certification order, given that, according to the defendants, the parties were conducting class-based discovery and the defendants’ response to the plaintiffs’ motion was not yet due.
On April 7, 2017, the court (Judge Deavers) issued an order setting a new deadline for conducting class discovery (May 19, 2017), and a new deadline for the defendants to file their motion in opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification (June 16, 2017). The court also granted the defendants’ unopposed joint motion for extension of time to answer the plaintiffs’ class action complaint. The defendants filed their answers on April 20, 2017.
On April 19, 2017, ten individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities served by Ohio's ICF system filed, through their guardians, a motion to intervene as plaintiffs. Following the guardians' motion for intervention, 99 individuals (other guardians of individuals in Ohio ICFs) filed motions to join in intervention. The guardian intervenors indicated that, for their wards, they did not want movement from their current institutional setting and that forcing them to move would cause substantial harm. They feared that the plaintiffs' claims and relief would deny individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities the choice to remain in an ICF. They sought intervention to protect their choice for their ward to remain in an ICF and for ICF placement to be provided as an option for people living in the community with unmet service needs. On May 10, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a response in opposition, stating that the requested relief would in no way foreclose the right of individuals to exercise informed choice to remain in ICFs.
On June 5, 2017, the court held a settlement conference in which the parties and the proposed intervenors participated. In an order of July 25, 2017, the court (Judge Sargus) permitted intervention by the guardian intervenors and by Ohio Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities (OCB).
The parties engaged in mediation and significant discovery around the reconsideration of class certification. In light of the class-based discovery and the intervention by the ICF guardians and the county board association, the plaintiffs moved to modify the class definition on August 28, 2017. The court granted the motion on September 20, 2017, and in their October 20, 2017 reply brief, the plaintiffs submitted the following modified class definition: "All Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio who, on or after March 31, 2016, are qualified for home and community-based services, but (a) are institutionalized in an Intermediate Care Facility with eight or more beds, and, after receiving options counseling, express that they are interested in, or may be interested in, integrated community-based services; or (b) are at serious risk of institutionalization in an Intermediate Care Facility with eight or more beds and have, by placing themselves on a waiting list for community-based services, expressed an interest in receiving integrated services while continuing to live in the community."
On March 30, 2018, the court (Judge Sargus) granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 307 F. Supp.3d 701 (S.D. Ohio 2018). The court exercised its discretion to modify class definitions, and revised the class definition as follows: "All Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio, who, on or after March 31, 2016, are qualified for home and community-based services, and, after receiving options counseling, express that they are interested in community-based services."
On September 14, 2018, the guardian intervenors filed a third-party complaint, filing suit against (1) Ohio and its disability departments and (2) the OCB and Disability Rights Ohio. The guardian intervenors filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Social Security Act, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights, the Fourteenth Amendment, and state law. The sole intention of their suit was to ensure that ICF right was actually offered, properly administered, and adequately funded. Guardian intervenors sought declaratory relief stating that defendants were violating the statutes above, as well as permanent injunctive relief to remedy violations of those statutes.
On September 25, 2018, the court (Judge Edmund A. Sargus) issued an order memorializing its definition of the class in response to the dispute about the class definition. The court defined the class as all Medicaid-eligible adults residing in Ohio with intellectual and development disabilities who were qualified for home and community-based service and, after receiving options counseling, wanted community-based services. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this definition on October 9, 2018, arguing that the class definition should be broader. The court denied this motion on December 7, 2018.
On October 25, 2018, the defendants moved to dismiss the guardian intervenor’s claim. The guardian intervenors withdrew their complaint and voluntarily dismissed their claims on November 20, 2018.
On May 10, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement. On October 18, 2019, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement stipulated that the defendants would offer a second round of options counseling to run through June 30, 2021. The counseling would help to identify which individuals interested in community-based services. The defendants also agreed to allocate additional funds to facilitate home and community-based services, including $24 million for housing assistance. The agreement had a tentative end date of January 8, 2023 subject to the resolution of any compliance disputes.
Judge Sargus conducted a fairness hearing on December 17, 2019. As with class certification, some individuals living in institutional settings who did not want to receive community-based services were concerned that they would lose access to their current services due to the settlement. On January 10, 2020, Disability Rights Ohio issued a press release asserting that existing services would not be reduced under the settlement.
On April 24, 2020, the court granted a joint motion for final approval of the proposed class action settlement agreement and approved the modified settlement agreement. The terms of the settlement agreement required the DODD offer a second round of options counseling to run through June 30, 2021. Counseling would be offered to individuals who reside in ICFs with eight or more beds and who are not represented by the Advocacy and Protective Services, Inc. The County Boards would also provide pre-admission counseling for all individuals with developmental disabilities who apply for admission to ICFs with eight or more beds. This commitment applied through January 8, 2023. For fiscal years 2020 and 2021, the DODD was expected to request funding for 700 new home and community-based services waivers. The DODD was also expected to provide $24 million to support access to affordable community housing options, and request an additional $12 million in funding during the next budget cycle. On June 8, 2020, the court awarded the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees in the amount of $1.2 million.
On November 14, 2022, the court denied the guardians' motion for reconsideration because they did not offer any intervening change in law or newly available evidence. On February 1, 2023, the guardians’ motion to file a sur-reply was granted and the court found summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
On March 3, 2023, an appeal (No. 23-3190) was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit by the defendants. On March 17, 2023, a cross-appeal was filed by the plaintiffs.
On June 2, 2023, the court dismissed the appeal based on the parties’ stipulation to dismiss. This case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Julie Singer (4/12/2017)
Sarah McDonald (8/11/2018)
Cedar Hobbs (11/9/2019)
Hope Brinn (3/27/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4363837/parties/ball-v-kasich/
Bagenstos, Samuel R. (Massachusetts)
Aebie, Todd J. (Ohio)
Aebie, Kim (Ohio)
Alexander, Jessica (Ohio)
Bauer, Dana B. (Ohio)
Bagenstos, Samuel R. (Massachusetts)
Costanzo, Cathy E. (Massachusetts)
Ellis, Neil R. (District of Columbia)
Hutchinson, John Gribbin (New York)
Knapp, Kristen A. (District of Columbia)
Krieger, Anna M. (Massachusetts)
McLean, Nicholas M. (New York)
Muenz, Jonathan Warren (New York)
Rucker, Kathryn L (Massachusetts)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4363837/ball-v-kasich/
Last updated April 21, 2025, 10:45 a.m.
State / Territory: Ohio
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 31, 2016
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, representing a class defined as follows (as revised by the court): "All Medicaid-eligible adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities residing in the state of Ohio who, on or after March 31, 2016, are qualified for home and community-based services, and, after receiving options counseling, express that they are interested in community-based services."
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, State
Ohio Department of Medicaid, State
Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, State
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)
Available 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
Content of Injunction:
Order Duration: 2020 - 2023
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Parents (visitation, involvement)
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Benefits (Source):
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Placement in mental health facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care: