article: On January 25, 2012, this class action was brought by individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD) and the United Cerebral Palsy Association of Oregon and Southwest Washington, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The plaintiffs claimed that the State of Oregon and its Offices of Developmental Disability Services and Vocational Rehabilitation Services, along with other state agencies, violated the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act by operating an employment services program that unnecessarily separated disabled participants from nondisabled participants. The plaintiffs claimed these segregated settings deprived members of the plaintiff class (more than 2,300 people in the state) of supported employment services, the opportunity to work alongside nondisabled persons, and the ability to compete for higher-paying jobs. They claimed the state's policy discriminated against them based on disability. The plaintiffs sought certification of their proposed class, declaratory relief, and a permanent injunction to limit unnecessary segregation in the defendants' employment services program and to provide an adequate array of integrated employment and supported employment services. On April 3, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs were attempting to create "a new cause of action" by extending the ADA's integration mandate beyond the requirement to provide community and home-based services (which were designed to prevent unnecessary institutionalization) to also include employment services. The defendants argued that (1) employment claims were not covered by Title II of the ADA; (2) the integration mandate did not apply because a denial of employment services did not place any plaintiff at risk of institutionalization; (3) the plaintiffs' claims sought to require the defendants to provide a service that the state did not and could not provide; and (4) the plaintiffs' claims improperly imposed a certain standard of care on the state's provision of employment services. At the core of the defendants' argument was the notion that the integration mandate of the ADA applied only to a person's place of residency and not place of employment. On April 20, 2012, the United States submitted a statement of interest regarding the motion to dismiss. It cited that contrary to defendant’s motion to dismiss, Title II of the ADA forms a clear and comprehensive mandate to end the segregation of persons with disabilities in virtually all aspects of American life. On May 17, 2012, Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart held that the integration mandate applies equally to employment-related services and to services allowing persons to live outside institutions. 841 F.Supp.2d 1199. The court did, however, find that the plaintiffs sought "the forbidden remedy" of requiring defendants to provide an adequate level of employment services to enable plaintiffs to obtain a competitive job in their initial complaint. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend. On May 29, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with changes made to correct errors identified by the court. The court then addressed the question of class certification. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class consisting of "all individuals in Oregon with intellectual or developmental disabilities who are in, or who have been referred to, sheltered workshops" and "who are qualified for supported employment services." The plaintiffs argued that the evidence needed to resolve the common questions of law and fact was the same for all class members. On August 6, 2012, the court granted class certification. 283 F.R.D. 587. On May 24, 2014, the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division filed an intervenor complaint on behalf of the United States, which included evidence of a nine-month investigation into Oregon’s failure to comply with the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Some individual members of the class viewed sheltered work as equally valuable as integrated work and moved to intervene on the concern that their ability to choose sheltered work would be curtailed. But on June 20, 2014, Magistrate Judge Stewart denied the motion. 2014 WL 2807701. On September 8, 2015, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement and on January 17, 2016, the court approved it. 166 F.Supp.3d 1180. In the settlement, the defendant committed to assisting 1,115 working-age individuals who receive or have received sheltered workshop services to obtain integrated employment in competitive-wage jobs and to reducing the number of adults with I/DD in sheltered workshops from 1,926 to no more than 1,530. The state also committed to end funding for sheltered workshop placements for youth newly eligible for state-funded employment, to provide at least 4,900 youth with employment services to help them access integrated employment, and to work with the state Department of Human Services in seeking financial incentives for providers to hire individuals with I/DD and in obtaining integrated employment. The parties agreed the settlement would terminate no later than July 1, 2022. On February 11, 2016, the court granted an award of $5,250,000.00 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs. 2016 WL 589684. As part of the settlement, the state's efforts are being monitored by an independent reviewer who will issue annual reports until the settlement's termination date. Since the case settled, two annual reports have been filed, one on March 2, 2017 and one on March 23, 2018. Because the settlement continues to be monitored and the plaintiffs may reopen litigation if defendants fail to comply, this case is ongoing as of May 22, 2020.
summary: This is a case filed in 2012 by persons with disabilities who qualify for the state of Oregon's supported employment services, and were not given meaningful opportunity to work in community settings, violating the ADA. The U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon held that the plaintiffs' claims were cognizable under the ADA, and that they could be brought as a class action, distinguishing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. A class action settlement was approved on February 11, 2016. As part of the settlement, Oregon agreed to a sustained commitment to improve employment offerings for about 7,000 people between 2015-2022. Their progress is being monitored by an independent review and will be reported on annually until the settlement agreement ends on July 1, 2022.