enter institutions in order to get the services they need. response to Defendants’ Plaintiffs’ evidence of risk of institutionalization is a conclusory statement by the Director of Bureau of Developmental Disabilities Services that services are sufficient. Filing 148, at 4 Plaintiffs’ (citing Second Julie Reynolds Decl., Filing No. 147-1, at 3). insistence that Defendants’ Plaintiffs have no integration mandate claim so long as they continue to reside in their homes, Filing No. 148, at 3-4, 10-18, is an impermissibly black and white formulation of the integration mandate. The State does not dispute that even with the efforts of family members, Plaintiffs experienced falls, depression, and other threats to their health due to the change in services. Plaintiffs thus have a cognizable at-risk claim under the integration mandate. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court hold that a non-institutionalized individual with a disability can bring a claim under Title II, its integration mandate, and for a State or actions that put an Olmstead local government’s individual at serious risk of institutionalization or segregation; deny motion for Defendants’ summary judgment; and allow the United States to participate in any argument that the Court may hear on either motion. Dated: March 27, 2015 Respectfully submitted, VANITA GUPTA JOSH J. MINKLER United States Attorney Acting Assistant Attorney General EVE HILL Deputy Assistant Attorney General /s/ /s/ Debra G. Richards Victoria L. Thomas Debra G. Richards Assistant United States Attorney REBECCA BOND Chief SHEILA S. FORAN Special Legal Counsel
enter institutions in order to get the services they need. Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ evidence of risk of institutionalization is a conclusory statement by the Director of Bureau of Developmental Disabilities Services that Plaintiffs’ services are sufficient. Filing 148, at 4 (citing Second Julie Reynolds Decl., Filing No. 147-1, at 3). Defendants’ insistence that Plaintiffs have no integration mandate claim so long as they continue to reside in their homes, Filing No. 148, at 3-4, 10-18, is an impermissibly black and white formulation of the integration mandate. The State does not dispute that even with the efforts of family members, Plaintiffs experienced falls, depression, and other threats to their health due to the change in services. Plaintiffs thus have a cognizable at-risk claim under the integration mandate. IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court hold that a non-institutionalized individual with a disability can bring a claim under Title II, its integration mandate, and Olmstead for a State or local government’s actions that put an individual at serious risk of institutionalization or segregation; deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment; and allow the United States to participate in any argument that the Court may hear on either motion. Dated: March 27, 2015 Respectfully submitted, JOSH J. MINKLER VANITA GUPTA United States Attorney Acting Assistant Attorney General EVE HILL Deputy Assistant Attorney General /s/ Debra G. Richards /s/ Victoria L. Thomas Debra G. Richards Assistant United States Attorney REBECCA BOND Chief SHEILA S. FORAN Special Legal Counsel