Quick Links OCRA PSA DDPSA Website Survey Donate Top 10 Pubs

Settlements of civil rights lawsuits against institutionalization

Laguna Honda settlement

On September 18, 2008 final approval was announced of the settlement of Chambers et al v. the City and County of San Francisco, Disability Rights California’s lawsuit on behalf of the hundreds of people with disabilities institutionalized in Laguna Honda Hospital.

Together with other disability rights organizations, we filed the case in 2006 in recognition that the long-term placement of people in this huge hospital was a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The ADA requires that individuals with disabilities be provided with services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. The settlement requires that the current residents and others who would have been placed in Laguna Honda be offered coordinated services to help them find community-based housing, if that is their choice. Disability Rights California will be monitoring the program.

A successful move into the community

Woodrow Falls, Jr., is now enjoying his new fully accessible one-bedroom apartment in a just-built senior housing complex, with a rooftop garden that has San Francisco views. A named plaintiff in the Chambers v. San Francisco case, Mr. Falls lived for many years with little privacy in an open ward of Laguna Honda Hospital. In late 2008, the judge who presided over the landmark settlement of the case, the Honorable William Alsup, visited Mr. Falls in his new home to get a first-hand understanding of the opportunities offered and the dignities inherent to living in the community.

Landmark Capitol People First case moves to settlement

Following discussions in 2008, on January 30, 2009, Judge Robert Freedman granted preliminary approval of the class action settlement agreement in Capitol People First et al v. Department of Developmental Services et al.

The settlement agreement will greatly increase opportunities for an estimated 7000 Californians with disabilities to receive supports and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.

The lawsuit was settled against the State of California; the Departments of Developmental Services (DDS), Health Care Services (DHCS), Mental Health (DMH); and the 21 local nonprofit Regional Centers (which contract with DDS). In addition, the Intervenors, California Association of State Hospital Parent Councils Retarded, and several individual developmental center residents, by way of their family members, have signed the Settlement Agreement.

Settlement Summary

In the Settlement Agreement, the defendants have agreed to do the following:

• Subject to Legislative approval, DDS will provide additional funds to each Regional Center to arrange for a case worker to attend Individual Program Plan (IPP) meetings of residents of Developmental Centers (DCs). If a resident chooses not to attend the annual IPP, the Regional Center service coordinator will work to obtain information about needs and preferences from the resident.
• Regional Centers will provide information to persons living in certain large private facilities about possible living arrangements in smaller, community-based settings.
• DDS will provide training to all DC staff who attend IPP meetings about community living options, community transition services, and consumer choices.
• Disability Rights California will prepare a poster about Community Living Options, Class Member rights, and information about how to contact an advocate for assistance in accessing these services, which DDS will display at the Developmental Centers and which the Regional Centers will send to other institutions for display.
• The DDS contract with the Office of Clients’ Rights at Disability Rights California, and its contract with the State Council on Developmental Disabilities, will require all Clients' Rights Advocates to provide information and training to class members about community living options. DDS will provide training to the Developmental Center and Regional Center CRAs about these options.
• DDS, in consultation with the DMH, will identify best practice models, develop materials and provide training and ongoing technical assistance to better identify and support consumers who are dually diagnosed with a developmental disability and a mental illness.
• Regional Centers and DDS will continue to use the Community Placement Plan process to help class members move to community set tings, and DDS will continue to fund such efforts, subject to Legislative Approval.

The terms of the settlement will remain in effect for three years. During this period, Disability Rights California will receive reports which will allow it to monitor the defendants’ performance under the settlement agreement.

In exchange, at the end of the three year term of the settlement, the lawsuit against all defendants will be dismissed.

Background of the Case:

The CPF class action lawsuit was filed in January 2002, seeking freedom for Californians with developmental disabilities from unnecessary isolation and segregation in institutions and access to the services they need to live in residential neighborhoods and participate as members of the community. The class includes the approximately 2500 regional center consumers who live in developmental centers and the 4500 consumers who live in other large congregate institutions.

The lawsuit was brought by Disability Rights California in the Alameda County Superior Court by 16 individual plaintiffs who resided in, or were at risk of placement in, developmental centers or other institutions; three organizational plaintiffs (Capitol People First, California Alliance for Inclusive Communities, and Arc California); and two taxpayer plaintiffs who asserted that the State is spending tax dollars unlawfully by continuing to institutionalize individuals who could live successfully in community homes.

Systemic changes across school district achieved without a lawsuit

The Hayward Unified School District has started a 10 year project to remove architectural barriers and to improve program access for its students with mobility, vision or hearing disabilities, as the result of a settlement between the school district and representatives of students with disabilities.

The settlement also covers concerns by parents and advocacy groups that the district had not adequately met the needs of special education students. This result was achieved without a lawsuit, through “structured negotiations” conducted over 2 years between lawyers for the district and lawyers with Disability Rights California and Disability Rights Advocates.

The changes, funded by a voter approved bond and the district-wide modernization of older buildings, will be monitored by a specialist in barrier removal and program access. A “quick-fix” fund has been set up to make necessary changes for students before the overall building rehabilitation is completed.

Meanwhile, Rodney Balangitao and Xavier Cordero, who filed the initial complaint against Hayward, have also received “compensatory” education services in related settlements. The complaint by these high school students charged Hayward with failing to provide pupils in the “Severely Handicapped” Transition Class with adequate instruction, accommodations and services in the least restrictive environment. The district agreed to help fund Rodney in a community-based adult services program before he officially finishes high school. He and Xavier, who left school before an agreement was reached, also received compensation for discrimination they faced in segregated, inaccessible facilities. The district also agreed to work with special education consultants on reforms to be phased in over the next 3 years.

National childcare agency agrees to new policy

Disability Rights California filed suit against Tutor Time for refusing to allow staff to help administer medication for children with disabilities. The Epilepsy Foundation of America was an organizational plaintiff. In late 2008, the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement, providing for a change in Tutor Time’s national policy that would require it to administer medication.