integration mandate of title II of the ADA, as interpreted in when it could Olmstead, instead provide more appropriate, community-based services at a lower cost. The undisputed facts set forth in the for summary judgment parties’ cross motions demonstrate that the defendants do not have a comprehensive, effectively working plan to address unnecessary institutionalization. As a result, they are not entitled to avail themselves of the affirmative defense that the relief sought would constitute a fundamental alteration of their service system. Additionally, the arguments asserted in support of the defendants’ for summary judgment are based on disputed facts and motion have no merit. Thus, the United States urges the Court to find that the defendants may not avail themselves of the fundamental alteration defense and to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Statutory and Regulatory Background Congress enacted the provide a clear and comprehensive national ADA “to mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with 42 disabilities.” U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). It found that has tended to isolate and “historically, society segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2). For those reasons, Congress prohibited social problem.” discrimination against individuals with disabilities by public entities: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
integration mandate of title II of the ADA, as interpreted in Olmstead, when it could instead provide more appropriate, community-based services at a lower cost. The undisputed facts set forth in the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment demonstrate that the defendants do not have a comprehensive, effectively working plan to address unnecessary institutionalization. As a result, they are not entitled to avail themselves of the affirmative defense that the relief sought would constitute a fundamental alteration of their service system. Additionally, the arguments asserted in support of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment are based on disputed facts and have no merit. Thus, the United States urges the Court to find that the defendants may not avail themselves of the fundamental alteration defense and to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Statutory and Regulatory Background Congress enacted the ADA “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). It found that “historically, society has tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2). For those reasons, Congress prohibited discrimination against individuals with disabilities by public entities: [N]o qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.