F. Supp. 3d 756, 776 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (class certification in action seeking relief for violations of Title II on the denial of community-based services); 283 Lane, F.R.D. 587 (certifying a class of persons with I/DD in segregated employment workshops, and rejecting defendants’ claims that class members’ different abilities, skills, needs, and preferences preclude certification); 289 Henderson v. Thomas, F.R.D. 506, 508 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (certifying a class of 80 prisoners alleging discrimination claims based upon their HIV status); No. C Oster v. Lightbourne, 09-4668 CW, 2012 WL 685808, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) (certifying a class of persons whose services will be cut, or terminated” under California's “limited, home-care program; 279 F.R.D. at 356 (same). Pashby, See also Gray v. Golden 279 F.R.D. 501 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (certified class of Gate Nat’l Recreational Area, people with mobility and vision disabilities claiming barriers in access to recreation area violate Title II of ADA), 866 F. Gray v. Golden Gate Nat’l Recreational Area, Supp. 2d 1129, 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (denying request to decertify class). Class certification is routine in Title II integration cases because they raise the common question of whether defendants’ policies or practices systemically result in needless institutionalization. In addition, relief can be afforded in a single injunction that requires the public entity to modify its program to end the offending policies or practices and allow individuals to receive services in most “the integrated setting.” Thus, the court can, a single stroke,” correct the federal “in
F. Supp. 3d 756, 776 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (class certification in action seeking relief for violations of Title II on the denial of community-based services); Lane, 283 F.R.D. 587 (certifying a class of persons with I/DD in segregated employment workshops, and rejecting defendants’ claims that class members’ different abilities, skills, needs, and preferences preclude certification); Henderson v. Thomas, 289 F.R.D. 506, 508 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (certifying a class of 80 prisoners alleging discrimination claims based upon their HIV status); Oster v. Lightbourne, No. C 09-4668 CW, 2012 WL 685808, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) (certifying a class of persons whose services will be “limited, cut, or terminated” under California's home-care program; Pashby, 279 F.R.D. at 356 (same). See also Gray v. Golden Gate Nat’l Recreational Area, 279 F.R.D. 501 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (certified class of people with mobility and vision disabilities claiming barriers in access to recreation area violate Title II of ADA), Gray v. Golden Gate Nat’l Recreational Area, 866 F. Supp. 2d 1129, 1142 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (denying request to decertify class). Class certification is routine in Title II integration cases because they raise the common question of whether defendants’ policies or practices systemically result in needless institutionalization. In addition, relief can be afforded in a single injunction that requires the public entity to modify its program to end the offending policies or practices and allow individuals to receive services in “the most integrated setting.” Thus, the court can, “in a single stroke,” correct the federal
AR-v.-Dudek-Amicus-brief-12-3-17.docx