Amundson Ex Rel. Amundson v. Wisconsin Department of Health Services
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 13905
7th Cir.2013Background
- Wisconsin reduced subsidies for the Wisconsin Care Program in 2011, effective January 2012, with cuts hitting the most costly care for developmentally disabled in group homes.
- Plaintiffs allege the reductions violate the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act and may increase risk of relocation from group homes to institutions.
- The district court treated the Rehabilitation Act and ADA as substantively identical; it allowed potential relief under Ex parte Young but held monetary relief against the state improper.
- The district court found the case premature on the institutionalization theory, as no plaintiff had been involuntarily moved to an institution.
- Plaintiffs argued Wisconsin's treatment of developmentally disabled persons compared to other disabilities constitutes discrimination under §12132 and related regulations.
- The Seventh Circuit held that Olmstead supersedes Grzan, permitting intra-class discrimination theory, but the claims as pleaded were not supported by a usable standard or comparison group and the case was ripe only on the discrimination theory against other disabled groups.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of claims seeking to halt monetary cuts | Plaintiffs contend ongoing harm from cuts will cause institutionalization | Risks are speculative; no imminent move to institutions shown | Claims premature; proper to wait for actual injury |
| Discrimination theory under Olmstead | Discrimination among disabled groups violates ADA/RA after Olmstead | Grzan controls; discrimination requires non-disabled comparator | Grzan overruled on intra-class discrimination; claims not sufficiently pleaded with comparator |
| Availability of relief under Ex parte Young vs. Eleventh Amendment | Injunctive relief against state officials permissible to prevent ongoing violations | No monetary relief; states immune except for prospective relief under Ex parte Young | RA claims may yield prospective relief; ADA relief depends on claim viability |
Key Cases Cited
- Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (discrimination includes undue institutionalization within protected class)
- Grzan v. Charter Hospital, 104 F.3d 116 (7th Cir. 1997) (discrimination requires non-disabled comparator)
- Jaros v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (RA/ADA alignment; district court's reasoning discussed)
- Verizon Maryland Inc. v. Public Service Commission of Maryland, 535 U.S. 635 (2002) (straightforward inquiry into ongoing federal-law violation and prospective relief)
- Ameritech Corp. v. McCann, 297 F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 2002) (relief requiring performance rather than payment)
- Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) (Article III, Eleventh Amendment limitations on prospective relief)
- Virginia Office for Protection & Advocacy v. Stewart, 131 S. Ct. 1632 (2011) (limits on monetary relief under Eleventh Amendment; prospects for non-monetary relief)
- University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) (ADA not generally waiving states' sovereign immunity)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (§5-based ADA remedies limited to federal rights)