holding that the "unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination," because of, among other factors, the "[d]issimilar treatment" inherent in the fact that institutionalized isolation requires persons with disabilities to "relinquish participation in community life they could enjoy given reasonable accommodations, while persons without mental disabilities can receive the medical services they need without similar sacrifice"
How later courts described this case
- holding that the "unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination," because of, among other factors, the "[d]issimilar treatment" inherent in the fact that institutionalized isolation requires persons with disabilities to "relinquish participation in community life they could enjoy given reasonable accommodations, while persons without mental disabilities can receive the medical services they need without similar sacrifice"
- finding that the “unjustified institutional isolation of persons with disabilities is a form of discrimination,” because the dissimilar treatment inherent to institutionalization requires persons with disabilities to “relinquish participation in community life they could enjoy given reasonable accommodations, while persons without mental disabilities can receive the medical services they need without similar sacrifice.”
- explaining that such a limited focus “overlooks costs the State cannot avoid; most notably, a ‘State . . . may experience increased overall expenses by funding community placements without being able to take advantage of the savings associated with the closure of institutions’” (omission in original) (quoting Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae at 21, Olmstead, 527 U.S. 581 )
- holding that unnecessary institutional segregation of persons with mental disabilities was discriminatory as it required “persons with mental disabilities . . . [to] relinquish participation in community life they could enjoy given reasonable accommodations, while persons without mental disabilities can receive the medical services they need without similar sacrifice.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Grieshop v. Oh. Dept of Job Family Serv, Unpublished Decision (12-15-2003), 2003 Ohio 6712 (2003)
As Allen MRDD is not proposing that Grieshop be institutionalized but rather suggests a roommate or a day program, Olmstead is inapplicable to this case.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
Unjustified disparate treatment, in this case, “unjustified institutional isolation,” constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. See ante, at 600. If a plaintiff requests relief that requires modification of a State’s services or programs, the State may assert, as an affirmative defense, that the requested modification would cause a fundamental alteration of a State’s services and programs. In this case, the Court of Appeals appropriately remanded for consideration of the State’s affirmative defense. On remand, the District Court rejected the State’s “fundamental-alteration defense.” See ante, at 596, n. 7. If the District Court was wrong in concluding that costs unrelated to the treatment of L. C. and E. W. do not support such a defense in this ease, that arguable error should be corrected either by the Court of Appeals or by this Court in review of that decision. In my opinion, therefore, we should simply affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. *608 But because there are not five votes for that disposition, I join the Court’s judgment and Parts I, II, and III-A of its opinion. Cf. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U. S. 624, 655-656 (1998) (Stevens, J., concurring); Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91, 134 (1945) (Rutledge, J., concurring in result).