DOJ Mental Health Olmstead Settlement Agreements (Adults)
U.S. v. New York – 13-cv-4165 – (E.D.N.Y. 2013)
On July 23, 2013, the United States, individual plaintiffs, and the State of New York filed a settlement agreement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The parties filed an amended settlement agreement on January 30, 2014, and the court approved the settlement agreement on March 17, 2014. The agreement remedies discrimination by the State in the administration of its mental health service system and ensures that individuals with mental illness who reside in 23 large adult homes in New York City receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs consistent with the ADA and Olmstead. Under the agreement, such individuals will have the opportunity to live and receive services in the community such that they are able to live, work, and participate fully in community life.
Amended Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF)- signed January 29, 2014
Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 23, 2013
Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 23, 2013
Press Release (HTML)
Fact Sheet about Agreement (Word)
Prior to the agreement, the parties litigated these issues in Disability Advocates v. Paterson, in the District Court and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In that case, following a trial on the merits, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that New York State officials and agencies discriminated against thousands of people with mental illness by administering the State's mental health service system in a manner that segregated them in large, institutional adult homes and denied them the opportunity to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs.
The DOJ intervened during the remedy phase of the case and participated in the appeal. On April 6, 2012, the Second Circuit vacated the remedial order and judgment of the District Court and dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction.
U.S. Brief as Appellee (PDF) - filed October 6, 2010
Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Remedial Plan and in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Remedial Plan (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 24, 2009
Amanda D., et al. v. Hassan, et al.; United States v. New Hampshire, No. 1:12-CV-53 (SM)
On December 19, 2013, the Department, along with a coalition of private plaintiff organizations, entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the State of New Hampshire that will significantly expand and enhance mental health service capacity in integrated community settings over the next six years. The Agreement is a full consent decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire as a Court order on February 12, 2014. The Agreement also provides for regular compliance reviews and public reporting by an independent monitor."
The Agreement will enable a class of thousands of adults with serious mental illness to receive expanded and enhanced services in the community, which will foster their independence and enable them to participate more fully in community life. It will significantly reduce visits to hospital emergency rooms and will avoid unnecessary institutionalization at State mental health facilities, including New Hampshire Hospital (the State’s only psychiatric hospital) and the Glencliff Home (a State-owned and –operated nursing facility for people with mental illness).
The Agreement requires the State, for the first time, to create mobile crisis teams in the most populated areas of the State and to create crisis apartments to help support team efforts at avoiding hospitalization or institutionalization. The Agreement also requires the State to make enhanced Assertive Community Treatment (“ACT”) team services available statewide, such that the mental health system can provide ACT to at least 1,500 people at any given time. The Agreement requires the State to provide scattered-site, permanent, supported housing to hundreds of additional people throughout the state; the State will also create special residential community settings to address the needs of persons with complex health care issues who have had difficulty accessing sufficient community services in the past. The State will also deliver additional and enhanced supported employment services, consistent with the Dartmouth evidence-based model, to hundreds of new recipients throughout the state.
The Settlement Agreement resolves litigation that had been contested for well over a year. Private Plaintiffs filed the initial complaint in February 2012, and on April 4, 2012, the Court granted the Department’s motion to intervene. On April 7, 2011, the United States had issued a Findings Letter concluding that the State of New Hampshire was failing to provide services to individuals with mental illness in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs in violation of the ADA, which led to the needless and prolonged institutionalization of individuals with disabilities and placed individuals with disabilities at risk of unnecessary institutionalization. On September 17, 2013, after months of discovery and a hearing with oral argument, the Court certified a class of Plaintiffs consistent with parameters supported by Plaintiffs and the United States. Shortly thereafter, settlement talks resumed which produced the instant Agreement.
Order Approving Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed February 12, 2014
Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 19, 2013
Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF)
United States' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to and in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed motion for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 21, 2013
US Memorandum In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion
for Class Certification (Word) | (PDF) - filed April 20, 2012
DOJ Findings Letter to New Hampshire (2011) (PDF) - filed April 7 , 2011
U.S. Motion to Intervene (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011
U.S. Memo in Support of Motion to Intervene
(Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011
U.S. Proposed Order on Intervention (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011
U.S.Proposed Complaint (Word) | (PDF) - filed March 27, 2011
Hunter v. Cook – 1:08-cv-02930-TWT – (N.D. Ga. 2013)
The United States filed a Statement of Interest in Hunter v. Cook, in opposition to the state of Georgia's argument that serious risk of institutionalization is not a viable claim under Title II of the ADA. The Plaintiffs' suit is a proposed class action under Title II of the ADA, the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 1396a et seq., and the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant's administration of the Department of Community Health and the Medicaid program denies, limits, and reduces their nursing services in a manner that puts Plaintiffs at risk of unnecessary confinement or out of home care in violation of the ADA.
Statement of Interest of the United States Word | (PDF) - filed March 14, 2013
U.S. v. Delaware – 11-CV-591 – (D. Del. 2010)
On July 6, 2011 the Division filed in District Court a Complaint and a simultaneous Settlement Agreement resolving its ADA Olmstead investigation into whether persons with mental illness in Delaware are being served in the most integrated settings appropriate to their needs and its CRIPA investigation into conditions of confinement at Delaware Psychiatric Center.
The fundamental goals of the Agreement are: to ensure that people who are unnecessarily institutionalized, at the Delaware Psychiatric Center or other inpatient psychiatric facilities, can receive the treatment they need in the community; to ensure that when individuals go into mental health crisis, sufficient resources are available in the community so that they do not need to go unnecessarily to psychiatric hospitals or jails; and to ensure that people with mental illness who are living in the community are not forced to enter institutions because of the lack of stable housing and intensive treatment options in the community.
Pursuant to the Agreement, Delaware will create a comprehensive community crisis system to serve as the front door to the state's mental health system including a crisis hotline, mobile crisis teams able to reach someone anywhere in the state within one hour, 2 walk-in crisis centers, and short term crisis stabilization units. The agreement also commits the state to providing intensive community-based treatment through 11 Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams, 4 intensive case management teams, and 25 targeted case managers. The State will offer at least 650 housing vouchers or subsidies to allow people to obtain stable, integrated housing. Finally, the State will develop evidence-based supported employment services for 1100 people, rehabilitation services including substance abuse and educational services to 1100 people, and family and peer support services to 1000 people. The Agreement requires Delaware to establish a statewide quality management system reflecting qualitative and quantitative measures and provides for an independent monitor with capacity to hire staff to assist in the implementation and to conduct compliance reviews.
The United States issued a Findings Letter in November 2010 stating that Delaware is violating the ADA integration mandate in its provision of mental health services.
For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.
September 24, 2013 report of the independent reviewer (Word) | (PDF)
March 8, 2013 report of the independent reviewer
September 5, 2012 report of the independent reviewer
January 30, 2012 report of the independent reviewer
Order Entering Settlement Agreement - filed July 18, 2011
Settlement Agreement - filed July 6, 2011
Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet
Press Release
Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 9, 2010
DOJ Findings Letter to Mississippi
The United States issued a Findings Letter in December 2011 concluding that Mississippi is violating the ADA's integration mandate in its provision of services to people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. After an extensive investigation, the Department found the State of Mississippi has failed to meet its obligations under the ADA by unnecessarily institutionalizing persons with mental illness or DD in public and private facilities and failing to ensure that they are offered a meaningful opportunity to live in integrated community settings consistent with their needs. The Department recommended that the State implement certain remedial measures, including the development of adequate, safe community-based services for people with developmental disabilities or mental illness who are unnecessarily institutionalized, or at risk of unnecessary institutionalization. DOJ seeks to work with the State to negotiate a settlement to resolve the findings.
For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.
Letter of Findings (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 22, 2011
U.S. v. Georgia – 10-CV-249 – (N.D. Ga. 2010)
On October 19, 2010, the DOJ entered into a comprehensive Settlement Agreement with the State of Georgia and Georgia officials, resolving the United States' complaint alleging that individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities confined in State hospitals were unnecessarily institutionalized and subjected to unconstitutional harm to their lives, health, and safety in violation of the ADA and the U.S. Constitution.
The agreement requires Georgia to expand community services so that individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities can receive supports in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Specifically, for individuals with developmental disabilities, the agreement provides that Georgia will cease all admissions to the State-operated institutions; transition all individuals to the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs by July 1, 2015; create more than 1100 home and community-based waivers to serve individuals in the community; serve those receiving waivers in their own home or their family's home consistent with the individual's informed choice; and provide family supports, mobile crisis teams, and crisis respite homes.
For individuals with mental illness, the agreement provides that Georgia will serve in the community 9,000 individuals with serious and persistent mental illness who are currently served in State Hospitals; frequently readmitted to State Hospitals; frequently seen in emergency rooms; chronically homeless and/or being released from jails or prisons. Services will be provided through a combination of 22 Assertive Community Treatment teams, 8 Community Support teams, 14 Intensive Case Management teams, 45 Case Management service providers, 6 Crisis Services Centers, 3 additional Crisis Stabilization Programs, community-based psychiatric beds, mobile crisis teams, crisis apartments, a crisis hotline, supported housing, supported employment, and peer support services. The agreement also provides for a State-wide quality management system for community services and names Elizabeth Jones as the Independent Reviewer to assess the State's compliance with the agreement.
For more information about this case, visit the Special Litigation Section's website.
DOJ Letter Regarding Year Three Compliance (Word) | (PDF) - September 20, 2013
Third report of the independent reviewer - September 19, 2013
Second report of the independent reviewer - September 20, 2012
First report of the independent reviewer - October 5, 2011
U.S. v. Georgia Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet (Word) | (PDF) - October 19, 2010
Settlement Agreement (Word) | (PDF) - filed October 19, 2010
Order (Amending and Entering Settlement Agreement) (PDF) - filed October 29, 2010
Williams v. Quinn – 05-CV-4673 – (N.D. Ill. 2005)
On May 24, 2010, the Department filed comments in Williams v. Quinn, supporting a Settlement Agreement that would provide hundreds of individuals with mental illness the opportunity to move from institutions to community-based settings. On September 29, 2010, the Court gave final approval of the Settlement Agreement. (748 F. Supp.2d 892)
Comments by the United States in Support of Final Approval of the Parties' Proposed Consent Decree (Word) | (PDF) - filed September 10, 2010
Napper v. County of Sacramento – 10-CV-01119 – (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Individuals with mental illness brought suit against the County of Sacramento for failing to provide adequate community-based services, which placed them at risk of institutionalization. In July 2010, the United States filed a Statement of Interest in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the Court stop the County from moving forward with its plans to drastically change the mental health service system. The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion on July 27, 2010.
U.S. Statement of Interest in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed July 19, 2010
Marlo M. v. Cansler – 09-CV-535 – (E.D.N.C. 2009)
In a case brought by two individuals with mental illness and developmental disabilities who faced institutionalization because of the State's decision to reduce their community-based services, the United States filed an Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction in December 2009, requesting that the Court stop the State from reducing the services.
The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction on January 17, 2010. (679 F.Supp. 2d 635).
U.S. Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Word) | (PDF) - filed December 23, 2010
Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy v. State of Connecticut – 3:06-CV-179 – (D. Conn. 2006)
The Plaintiffs in this lawsuit challenge the State of Connecticut's reliance on privately-run, segregated nursing facilities to serve the needs of individuals with mental illness who would be more appropriately served in community-based settings.
The United States filed an Amicus Curiae Brief opposing the State's Motion to Dismiss.
The Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on March 31, 2010. (706 F. Supp. 2d 266)
The case is ongoing.
U.S. Memorandum as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Word) | (PDF) - filed November 25, 2009