The Ruling
The L.C. decision plainly establishes that unnecessary segregation
of people with disabilities in institutions is a form of discrimination under
the ADA. Like other forms of disability discrimination, it is presumptively
unlawful; the state must remedy the discrimination unless it can establish
certain defenses.
The Supreme Court stated that unnecessary institutional placement perpetuates
unfounded assumptions that people with disabilities are incapable or unworthy
of participating in society. Secondly, the justices found, institutional confinement
severely curtails opportunities for participation in everyday activities, such
as family and social activities, work and educational options, economic independence
and cultural enrichment. To remedy this type of discrimination, the court stated
that the ADA requires states to serve individuals with disabilities in community
settings rather than in segregated institutions, when this is appropriate and
reasonable in light of certain factors.(2)
While rendering unnecessary institutionalization presumptively unlawful, the L.C. decision
does afford states—and other potential defendants—a defense to L.C. claims.
A state is not required to transfer an unnecessarily institutionalized person
to the community if doing so would fundamentally alter the state's program.
Whether serving particular individuals in a more integrated setting would require
a fundamental alteration depends on:
(1) the cost of providing community services to the individuals,
(2) the resources available to the state, and
(3) the state's need both to maintain a range of facilities and to distribute
services in an evenhanded way.
As an example of how a state might establish a defense in a case under L.C.,
the court said that the state could demonstrate a defense if it had:
a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified
persons with mental disabilities in less restrictive settings, and a waiting
list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the State's endeavors
to keep its institutions fully populated.
Where such a plan is in effect, the court also made clear that individuals
may not jump to the top of the waiting list by bringing a lawsuit.
The ruling in L.C. addresses a case where two women, L.C. and E.W.,
had already been institutionalized and were at risk of re-institutionalization.
Also affected by the ruling, however, are individuals who have not been institutionalized
but are at risk of unnecessary institutionalization due to lack of community
services. This is a potentially large population in any state. State plans
to place qualified individuals in less restrictive settings should therefore
also accommodate this at-risk group, or the state will continually find itself
with a significant population unnecessarily institutionalized. It will then
be out of compliance with the L.C. ruling.
If a state fails to adopt an effective plan, or fails to implement the plan,
litigation is an option. The national disability community and its legal advocates
have established July 26, 2000, the anniversary of the ADA, as the date by
which states should have developed and begun implementing comprehensive and
effective plans aimed at eliminating unnecessary institutionalization.
|
