Jeffery Gorman, who uses a wheelchair, was arrested in Kansas City, Missouri. The van used to take him to the police station was not equipped to transport him in his wheelchair. Despite his protests, the officers removed Mr. Gorman from his chair and used his belt to strap him onto a bench. When the belt gave way he fell from the bench hurting his back and shoulder, and rupturing his urine bag.
Mr. Gorman sued the Kansas City police department for discrimination based on his disability. A jury agreed with Mr. Gorman, and awarded him damages. The jury also sent the police a message that their conduct was especially offensive by awarding Mr. Gorman punitive damages (money awarded with the intent of punishing for reckless and malicious behavior). But in 2002, the Supreme Court took that tool away from juries and held that punitive damages can't be awarded in cases enforcing laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability.
Barnes v. Gorman (2002)
One-hundred-and-two-year-old Dorsey Pierce, a resident of the Buckhannon Board and Care Home, was told by his state of West Virginia that he could not continue to live at Buckhannon because of a law called the "self-preservation rule" that prohibited the home from housing people who could not exit the facility without aid in the case of a fire. Buckhannon, Mr. Pierce and other residents sued the state, saying that this law discriminated against people with disabilities. Before the case could be decided, however, the West Virginia Legislature repealed the self-preservation rule, and thus the Court said that it no longer needed to rule on the case. Even though they didn't technically win their case in a court of law, Mr. Pierce and the home believed that it was their lawsuit that had lead to the repeal of this law and the favorable outcome and asked the Court to award them attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court ruled that because they had not won the suit in court they couldn't get their money back.
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources (2001)
Like other 29-year-olds, Charles Irvin Littleton wanted to get a job. But the mental disabilities he was born with made it difficult. He’d graduated from high school with a certificate in special education and had attended a technical college, but he still lived at home and supported himself with social security benefits and the help of his family. He began working with a job coach who arranged for Mr. Littleton to have an interview at an Alabama Wal-Mart store. But when Wal-Mart officials told Mr. Littleton that his job coach could not come to the interview with him, everything went downhill. Mr. Littleton’s interview did not go well and Wal-Mart did not offer him a job.
Mr. Littleton sued Wal-Mart for discriminating against him because of his disability. The case went all the way up the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that Mr. Littleton was not disabled under ADA rules and therefore could not sue for disability discrimination. In order to be considered disabled for ADA purposes, Mr. Littleton had to prove that he was “substantially limited in a major life activity.” Even though Mr. Littleton’s disability was permanent and limited his ability to work and learn, the court found this was not enough to prove he was disabled for purposes of the law. Mr. Littleton had attended school and was able to think, communicate and work, the court held, so he was not disabled under the ADA, even though he was mentally challenged.
He tried to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court but the justices denied his petition. Thus, Mr. Littleton’s case now makes the law more difficult for plaintiffs to bring disability discrimination lawsuits. Plaintiffs have to prove much more to show they are “substantially limited in a major life activity.”
Littleton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2007)
Residents of the Great Oaks Center, a Maryland institution for individuals with developmental disabilities, were subjected to abuse, neglect, unnecessary physical restraints, denied medical care and services to prevent their deterioration. They went to court and sought to stop new admissions to Great Oaks Center and to have current residents transferred to appropriate community living arrangements. Four years later, the state closed Great Oaks and within three years all but two of the residents were transferred to community placements.
Because most of what the former residents had complained about had been fixed, everyone agreed to dismiss the case. When they sought reimbursement for their attorney's work, which amounted to over $1 million, they were denied. Although the courts agreed that the lawsuit had contributed substantially to the state's actions, because of the Supreme Court's decision in Buckhannon (above), the former residents were out of luck.
Wade v. Coughlin (2000; courtesy of civilrights.org)
DISABILITY RIGHTS FOR THOSE WHO CAN AFFORD IT
Pearl and Theodore Murphy believed that their son who has a disability was not receiving the kind of public education that's guaranteed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). They sued their school district to force it to provide the education the boy needed and the court decided the case in their favor. Many families can't afford to hire a lawyer, so the law allows families to request that school districts pay their fees and costs if they win the lawsuit under the IDEA, because getting children appropriate services is so important.
Though the district and circuit courts granted the Murphy's request, in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled against them. Through a narrow reading of the law, the majority of the Court decided that the costs of experts -- needed to prove a case -- could not be reimbursed. This decision makes it even more difficult for parents with limited resources to go to court to enforce their children's rights to the education they need. If parents have to cover the cost of getting expert opinions in order to prove their case, many children won't get appropriate services, just because their parents can't afford the legal costs.
Arlington Central School District v. Murphy (2006)
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES LOSE IMPORTANT LEGAL REMEDY
In 1988, a student called A.W. (courts use initials to protect the privacy of minors) enrolled in the Jersey City Public School system as a second grader. Because he has dyslexia, he had a very hard time learning how to read, write, and spell. His school system had no reading and writing program -- something required by law -- to help students with dyslexia learn and A.W. continued to fall behind other students of his age. A.W.'s grandmother filed a complaint with the New Jersey Department of Education on behalf of her grandson and other Jersey City students with dyslexia. The department confirmed that the schools had failed to implement any reading and writing program for students with dyslexia -- but then did nothing to ensure the schools did anything about it.
In 2000, 13 years after A.W. entered the Jersey City public school system, the school district finally implemented an educational program that required specialized instruction in reading, writing, and spelling. Although he finally received the education he deserved, A.W. was by then a 20-year-old tenth-grader and had missed out on years of critical learning, so he took his case to court.
A.W. sued under section 1983, a federal statute that creates a right for an individual to bring a lawsuit when their rights were violated by a state. A.W. claimed that his rights were violated because the state failed to abide by two important federal statutes. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in any program that receives federal funding. The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act guarantees all children with disabilities a "free appropriate public education" that meets their specific needs.
Up until this case, parents and children were able to sue public school systems and their employees under section 1983 for violations of these two acts. But that changed when the Court of Appeals said that A.W. could not sue under section 1983. Now students like A.W. cannot seek compensation for their losses.
A.W. v. Jersey City Public Schools (2007)
Disability laws don’t protect the parents of disabled children
Cheryl Blanchard spent years fighting for her son Daniel to have a proper education. Daniel was autistic and received special education through their local school district in Washington.
But the school district did not keep their promise to provide Daniel with the additional services he required –individual attention, extra time in school, and equal treatment. Ms. Blanchard went to hearing after hearing trying to get the school district to give Daniel the education that the law entitles him to.
Some of the problems were resolved, but not all. Ms. Blanchard was still upset that her son was being denied access to field trips that other children were attending. And even though the school district eventually complied with some of the orders, she’d had to miss work for the hearings, and the hurdles the school district forced her to jump over had taken their toll over the years. Frustrated, she brought the Morton School District into court, claiming emotional distress and seeking the lost wages she would have earned during the times she was preparing for and attending hearings.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed her case, holding that Ms. Blanchard did not have a right to sue for own distress and lost wages. The law protects children with disabilities, not their parents, the Court held.
Ms. Blanchard’s case is significant because it limits the ability of parents to sue. Not only do parents have to fight for school districts to provide a good education to their disabled children, but the courts, at least in the Ninth Circuit, have now left parents without a way to seek lost wages for the work they missed.
Blanchard v. Morton School District (2007)
For more information on disability rights, go to that section.