• previous post
• next post

•  RSS, Disability Field News
•  RSS, Hope House News

Eleven years ago Olmstead v. L.C. was passed

June 23rd, 2010

By Disability.gov

Today is June 22, 2010. Eleven years ago, on this day, the United States Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C. that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in institutions constitutes discrimination based on disability.

This was a momentous event in American and disability history, and because the Court interpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in this way, Olmstead has played an integral role in how disability policy language is written and understood ever since.

Let’s begin with some background. During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most people believed that individuals with mental disabilities were “degenerates” and “unfit to live.” This attitude caused segregation to be broadly accepted on the grounds that it was beneficial for both the community at-large and for people with disabilities. Why? Because people with disabilities were thought to be “unsuitable for companionship, a blight on mankind and whose mingling with society was a most baneful evil.” (Source: http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/garrett/community.htm ).

In 1990, when the ADA was passed, language in Title II of the Act read: “…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.”

This language in the Act is often referred to as the ADA’s “integration mandate” and represented in statute and attitude a movement away from the prejudicial attitudes of the past.

In 1995, however, Lois Curtis and Elaine Wilson, (L.C. and E.W. in the trial), two women with mental health disabilities, filed a lawsuit against the State of Georgia. According to court records, Curtis was diagnosed with schizophrenia and Wilson with a personality disorder. Both women had a long history of periodic institutionalization. Though they had completed their medical treatment and were deemed medically ready to return to their communities, attitudes about individuals with mental health disabilities kept them imprisoned in an institution.

In May 1992, Curtis 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 her treatment team at the hospital agreed that she would be well-served in one of the community-based programs the state supported. Despite this evaluation, she remained institutionalized until February 1996, when the state placed her in a community-based treatment program.

Wilson was voluntarily admitted to Georgia Regional Hospital in February 1995; like Curtis, she was treated in the psychiatric unit. In March 1995, the hospital tried to discharge her to a homeless shelter, but abandoned that plan after her attorney filed an administrative complaint. By 1996, Wilson’s treating psychiatrist concluded that she could be treated appropriately in a community-based setting. However, she remained institutionalized until 1997.

The women simply wanted the opportunity to live in their community. The core of the lawsuit turned on the question of “[w]hether the public services portion of the federal Americans with Disabilities Act REQUIRED the state to provide treatment and habilitation for people with mental disabilities in a community placement, when appropriate treatment and habilitation can also be provided to them in a State mental institution.”

The Supreme Court ruled that under Title II of the ADA the women had the right to receive care in the most integrated setting appropriate and that their unnecessary institutionalization was discriminatory and violated the ADA. In essence, the Olmstead case acts as a judicial guarantee that individuals cannot be imprisoned in institutions and hospitals just because people are uncomfortable, or have unfounded biases and prejudices about persons with disabilities. Olmstead is now the cornerstone for advocacy efforts relating to integration.

So what has happened since the Supreme Court’s ruling? To help states comply with Olmstead, the federal government has issued guidance based on the Court’s opinion. It has also provided ongoing policy guidance encouraging review and development of state long-term care and Olmstead plans, and promoted the increased use of existing policy options for Home and Community Based Services.

The anniversary of this landmark decision is a reminder of the importance of individual advocacy as well as the need for legislation to better address two core problems for individuals with disabilities which the Olmstead case highlighted and that continue to this day

1. Lack of an overall national policy framework for community integration of people with disabilities, and
2. Inadequate changes in long-term services and support systems to eliminate unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities.

As far as changing prejudicial attitudes about individuals with disabilities, that work also continues. But today we celebrate the decision reached eleven years ago, in which the United States Supreme Court held in Olmstead v. L.C. that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities in institutions constitutes discrimination based on disability.