should not prevent aspects of this case from proceeding on a class basis. II. Class Certification Is Appropriate in This Case. It is well established that rights actions, particularly those that seek to vindicate the rights of persons with disabilities pursuant to the integration mandate of the ADA and the Supreme Court’s opinion in 527 U.S. 581 (1999), may be well-suited for Olmstead v. L.C., resolution on a class basis. No. 11-2363, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4516, See, e.g., Pashby v. Delia, at *14-*18 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2013) (upholding certification of class of all current or future North Carolina Medicaid recipients age 21 or older who have, or will have, coverage of personal care denied, delayed, interrupted, terminated, or reduced due to new eligibility requirements in violation of the ADA); 283 F.R.D. 587, 594-602 (D. Or. 2012) (certifying Lane v. Kitzhaber, class of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities who are in or have been referred to sheltered workshops and who are qualified for supported employment services, for claims arising under ADA and Rehabilitation Act). These actions frequently call for rulings on State policies and practices that simultaneously impact large numbers of citizens. This case presents no exception. Plaintiffs here seek declaratory and injunctive relief to change State policies and practices that either have resulted in the warehousing of large numbers of medically fragile children into nursing facilities, or threaten to do so. If Plaintiffs prevail in arguing that these State policies violate the ADA, then this Court can issue a single order commanding the State to change its policies, to refrain from employing discriminatory policies, and to institute policies to prevent discrimination. Such an order would provide relief to the entire proposed class. A. Class Certification Allows for Efficient, Effective Resolution of Civil Rights Cases, Especially Those Involving Rights Protected by the ADA.
should not prevent aspects of this case from proceeding on a class basis. II. Class Certification Is Appropriate in This Case. It is well established that rights actions, particularly those that seek to vindicate the rights of persons with disabilities pursuant to the integration mandate of the ADA and the Supreme Court’s opinion in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), may be well-suited for resolution on a class basis. See, e.g., Pashby v. Delia, No. 11-2363, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4516, at *14-*18 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2013) (upholding certification of class of all current or future North Carolina Medicaid recipients age 21 or older who have, or will have, coverage of personal care denied, delayed, interrupted, terminated, or reduced due to new eligibility requirements in violation of the ADA); Lane v. Kitzhaber, 283 F.R.D. 587, 594-602 (D. Or. 2012) (certifying class of individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities who are in or have been referred to sheltered workshops and who are qualified for supported employment services, for claims arising under ADA and Rehabilitation Act). These actions frequently call for rulings on State policies and practices that simultaneously impact large numbers of citizens. This case presents no exception. Plaintiffs here seek declaratory and injunctive relief to change State policies and practices that either have resulted in the warehousing of large numbers of medically fragile children into nursing facilities, or threaten to do so. If Plaintiffs prevail in arguing that these State policies violate the ADA, then this Court can issue a single order commanding the State to change its policies, to refrain from employing discriminatory policies, and to institute policies to prevent discrimination. Such an order would provide relief to the entire proposed class. A. Class Certification Allows for Efficient, Effective Resolution of Civil Rights Cases, Especially Those Involving Rights Protected by the ADA.
th-dudek_soi(2).docx