Olmstead v L.C.

Decision Date22 June 1999
Docket Number98536
PartiesSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 119 S.Ct. 2176 138 F.3d 893, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.536 TOMMY OLMSTEAD, COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al., PETITIONERS v. L. C., by JONATHAN ZIMRING, guardian ad litem and next friend, et al. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

L. C., by JONATHAN ZIMRING, guardian ad litem and next friend, et al.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

[June 22, 1999]

Justice Ginsburg announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III A, and an opinion with respect to Part III B, in which O'Connor, Souter, and Breyer, JJ., joined.

This case concerns the proper construction of the anti-discrimination provision contained in the public services portion (Title II) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 337, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Specifically, we confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions. The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes. Such action is in order when the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities. In so ruling, we affirm the decision of the Eleventh Circuit in substantial part. We remand the case, however, for further consideration of the appropriate relief, given the range of facilities the State maintains for the care and treatment of persons with diverse mental disabilities, and its obligation to administer services with an even hand. I

This case, as it comes to us, presents no constitutional question. The complaints filed by plaintiffs-respondents L. C. and E. W. did include such an issue; L. C. and E. W. alleged that defendants-petitioners, Georgia health care officials, failed to afford them minimally adequate care and freedom from undue restraint, in violation of their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Complaint ¶¶87 91; Intervenor's Complaint ¶¶30 34. But neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals reached those Fourteenth Amendment claims. See Civ. No. 1:95 cv 1210 MHS (ND Ga., Mar. 26, 1997), pp. 5 6, 11 13, App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a 35a, 40a 41a; 138 F.3d 893, 895, and n. 3 (CA11 1998). Instead, the courts below resolved the case solely on statutory grounds. Our review is similarly confined. Cf. Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 450 (1985) (Texas city's requirement of special use permit for operation of group home for mentally retarded, when other care and multiple-dwelling facilities were freely permitted, lacked rational basis and therefore violated Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment). Mindful that it is a statute we are construing, we set out first the legislative and regulatory prescriptions on which the case turns.

In the opening provisions of the ADA, Congress stated findings applicable to the statute in all its parts. Most relevant to this case, Congress determined that

"(2) 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;

"(3) discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as . . . institutionalization . . . ;

. . . . .

"(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion, . . . failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices, . . . [and] segregation . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2), (3), (5).1

Congress then set forth prohibitions against discrimination in employment (Title I, §§12111 12117), public services furnished by governmental entities (Title II, §§12131 12165), and public accommodations provided by private entities (Title III, §§12181 12189). The statute as a whole is intended "to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities." §12101(b)(1).2

This case concerns Title II, the public services portion of the ADA.3 The provision of Title II centrally at issue reads:

"Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no 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." §12132.

Title II's definition section states that "public entity" includes "any State or local government," and "any department, agency, [or] special purpose district." §§12131(1)(A), (B). The same section defines "qualified individual with a disability" as

"an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity." §12131(2).

On redress for violations of §12132's discrimination prohibition, Congress referred to remedies available under §505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 92 Stat. 2982, 29 U.S.C. § 794a. See 42 U.S.C. § 12133 ("The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in [§505 of the Rehabilitation Act] shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of section 12132 of this title.").4

Congress instructed the Attorney General to issue regulations implementing provisions of Title II, including §12132's discrimination proscription. See §12134(a) ("[T]he Attorney General shall promulgate regulations in an accessible format that implement this part.").5 The Attorney General's regulations, Congress further directed, "shall be consistent with this chapter and with the coordination regulations . . . applicable to recipients of Federal financial assistance under [§504 of the Rehabilitation Act]." 42 U.S.C. § 12134(b). One of the §504 regulations requires recipients of federal funds to "administer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified handicapped persons." 28 CFR § 41.51(d) (1998).

As Congress instructed, the Attorney General issued Title II regulations, see 28 CFR pt. 35 (1998), including one modeled on the §504 regulation just quoted; called the "integration regulation," it reads:

"A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities." 28 CFR § 35.130(d) (1998).

The preamble to the Attorney General's Title II regulations defines "the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities" to mean "a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible." 28 CFR pt. 35, App. A, p. 450 (1998). Another regulation requires public entities to "make reasonable modifications" to avoid "discrimination on the basis of disability," unless those modifications would entail a "fundamenta[l] alter[ation]"; called here the "reasonable-modifications regulation," it provides:

"A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity." 28 CFR § 35.130(b)(7) (1998).

We recite these regulations with the caveat that we do not here determine their validity. While the parties differ on the proper construction and enforcement of the regulations, we do not understand petitioners to challenge the regulatory formulations themselves as outside the congressional authorization. See Brief for Petitioners 16 17, 36, 40 41; Reply Brief 15 16 (challenging the Attorney General's interpretation of the integration regulation).

II

With the key legislative provisions in full view, we summarize the facts underlying this dispute. Respondents L. C. and E. W. are mentally retarded women; L. C. has also been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and E. W., with a personality disorder. Both women have a history of treatment in institutional settings. In May 1992, L. C. was voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital at Atlanta (GRH), where she was confined for treatment in a psychiatric unit. By May 1993, her psychiatric condition had stabilized, and L. C.'s treatment team at GRH agreed that her needs could be met appropriately in one of the community-based programs the State supported. Despite this evaluation, L. C. remained institutionalized until February 1996, when the State placed her in a community-based treatment program. E. W. was voluntarily admitted to GRH in February 1995; like L. C., E. W. was confined for treatment in a psychiatric unit. In March 1995, GRH sought to discharge E. W. to a homeless shelter, but abandoned that plan after her attorney filed an administrative complaint. By 1996, E. W.'s treating psychiatrist concluded that she could be treated appropriately in a community-based setting. She nonetheless remained institutionalized until a few months after the District Court issued its judgment in this case in 1997.

In May 1995, when she was still institutionalized at GRH, L. C. filed suit in the United States District...

To continue reading

Request your trial
855 cases
  • Wright v. Carroll Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • August 26, 2013
    ...... at 846 (citing Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 589 (1999)); see also Edison v. Douberly, 604 F.3d at 1310 (11th Cir. 2010) ("A private contractor does not ......
  • Dunakin v. Quigley, CASE NO. C14-0567JLR
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Western District of Washington)
    • April 10, 2015
    ......§§ 35.130(d), 41.51(d). In Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring , 527 U.S. 581 (1999), the Supreme Court held that these integration mandates require a state to provide services to ......
  • Messier v. Southbury Training School
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • June 5, 2008
    ......§§ 12131-12165, both of which were enacted to prohibit discrimination against disabled persons in the provision of public services. In Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 589 n. 1, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999), the Supreme Court explained that the ADA was the federal government's "most ......
  • Sekona v. Perez, 1:19-cv-00400-NONE-GSA (PC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • May 12, 2020
    ......2002). A cause of action under § 504 of the RA essentially Page 13 parallels an ADA cause of action. See Olmstead v. Zimring , 527 U.S. 581, 590 (1999); Duvall v. County of Kitsap , 260 F.3d 1124, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001).         Monetary damages are not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Over A Decade In The Making: CMS Releases Long-Awaited Medicaid Managed Care Rule
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • June 9, 2015
    ...the party calculating the adjustment and the timing and frequency of the adjustment must also be included. Endnotes 1 Olmstead v. L. C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (holding that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with mental disabilities must have access to the least restrictive se......
24 books & journal articles
  • Disability Law and HIV Criminalization.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 130 No. 6, April 2021
    • April 1, 2021
    ...a "person [who] is a carrier of the virus that causes acquired immunodeficiency syndrome"). (121.) Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 598 (1999). While Olmstead concerned claims about the segregation of people with disabilities in institutions, the Court's analysis emphasized t......
  • Serious emotional disturbances: children's fight for community-based services through Medicaid litigation.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 41 No. 1, December 2007
    • December 22, 2007
    ...(52.) See Weithorn, supra note 2, at 1425-26 (discussing how IDEA and ADA used in litigation for community-based services). (53.) 527 U.S. 581 (54.) Id.; 42 U.S.C. [section] 12132 (disallowing exclusion of disabled person from publicly operated programs); see Weithorn, supra note 2, at 1430......
  • A WOMAN'S CHOICE? THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOWN SYNDROME ABORTION BANS AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THE DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 2, December 2020
    • December 22, 2020
    ...www.cdc.gov/features/sleep-heart-health/index.html [https: //perma.cc/Z B7B-353U] (last updated Dec. 3. 2018). (91.) Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 589-90 (1999). But the Court made two observations of the exclusion of those with disabilities from public life. First, the "institutional pla......
  • Protection from protection: section 1983 and the ADA's implications for devising a race-conscious police misconduct statute.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 150 No. 5, May 2002
    • May 1, 2002
    ...note 58, at 445. (112) L.C. by Zimring v. Olmstead, 138 F.3d 893, 904-05 (11th Cir. 1998), aff'd in part, vacated in part, and remanded by 527 U.S. 581 (1999); Harrington, supra note 58, at 446 (citing Alabama Nursing Home Ass'n v. Harris, 617 F.2d 388 (5th Cir. (113) Harrington, supra note......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
78 provisions
  • PL 111-148, HR 3590 – Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    • United States
    • U.S. Public Laws
    • January 1, 2010
    ...were made, Congress has never acted on the report. (2) In 1999, under the United States Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), individuals with disabilities have the right to choose to receive their long-term services and supports in the community, rather than in......
  • Chapter 179, SB 1498 – Maintenance of the codes.
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2008
    ...individuals and are integral in ensuring the state's compliance with the United States Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. (1999) 527 U.S. 581, which requires public agencies to provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with (b)......
  • Act 099-0143, HB 4049 – AN ACT concerning persons with disabilities
    • United States
    • Illinois Session Laws
    • January 1, 2015
    ...Section are as follows: (1) The General Assembly recognizes that the United States Supreme Court in Olmstead v. L.C. ex Rel. Zimring, 119 S. Ct. 2176 (1999), affirmed that the unjustifiable institutionalization of a person with a disability who could live in the community with proper suppor......
  • Chapter 86, SB 1171 – Maintenance of the codes
    • United States
    • California Session Laws
    • January 1, 2016
    ...(i) Compliance with state policy associated with the United States Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring (1999) 527 U.S. 581. (ii) Direct care staff retention, if not addressed in the 2012-13 rate (iii) The use of chemical restraints. (D) Beginning with the 2015-16 fisc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT