Petition to permit an interlocutory appeal and therefore decline to reach the merits of the District’s challenge to the class certification. I. The named Plaintiffs in the underlying case are citizens of the District who have been receiving Medicaid-funded long-term care in nursing homes and who seek access to community-based alternatives. They brought this Olmstead action against the District, alleging it had failed to comply with its obligations under federal law— specifically, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — that require it to “provide services to people with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.” Compl. at 2; see also Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999) (<HOLDING>). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs claimed to
holding that a collectivelybargained seniority system was not trumped by the duty to reasonably accommodate the disabled under the americans with disabilities act holding that unjustified segregation constitutes discrimination prohibited by the americans with disabilities act holding that despite garrett congress abrogated state sovereign immunity under title ii of americans with disabilities act recognizing native americans as a distinct group holding that the virginia disabilities act constitutes the most analogous state statute of limitations for claims brought under the ada