Lane v. Kitzhaber, 283 F.R.D. 587

Background

ADA and Rehabilitation Act class action seeking injunctive relief for rights of Oregon adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities in sheltered workshops; proposed class includes individuals in Oregon who are in or referred to sheltered workshops and qualified for supported employment services; eight named plaintiffs plus UCP plaintiff organization; defendants include Oregon state officials overseeing DHS, ODDS, and OVRS; court grants class certification under FRCP 23(a) and FRCP 23(b)(2).
Legislative framework requires most integrated setting, with reasonable modifications and exceptions for undue hardship or fundamental alteration; ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination and mandate integrated employment where feasible.
ODDS/OVRS administer employment services and operate two Medicaid waivers funding sheltered workshops and supported employment; Employment First Policy prioritizes integrated employment but implementation has been insufficient.
Sheltered workshops described as segregated, pay below minimum wage, with minimal contact with non-disabled peers; integrated employment is a real job in a community setting with non-disabled coworkers and at least minimum wage.
Plaintiffs contend defendants’ system-wide planning, funding, and administration fail to provide adequate supported employment and maintain segregation; defendants argue no commonality or typicality; court finds common issues exist and class-wide relief appropriate.
Eight named plaintiffs’ status and history show varied experiences with integrated vs. segregated settings, but all seek better access to integrated employment and supported services.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there commonality under FRCP 23(a)(2)?	Plaintiffs show a system-wide policy causing segregation that affects all class members.	Wal-Mart requires highly individualized inquiries due to disability diversity.	Yes; common questions exist and class can be certified.
Are the named plaintiffs' claims typical of the class under FRCP 23(a)(3)?	Plaintiffs and counsel have no conflicts and adequately represent rural and urban class members.	Questions about geographic diversity and conflicts.	Yes; adequacy satisfied.
Is certification proper under FRCP 23(b)(2)?	Injunctive relief can address class-wide systemic deficiencies without individualized determinations.	Consent to ongoing, individualized service determinations.	Yes; a class-wide injunction is appropriate to implement employment system changes.
Do the common questions allow resolution without individualized inquiries into each member’s disability or needed accommodation?	Common core: system-wide failure to provide integrated employment.	Different needs require individualized determinations.	Common resolution appropriate; one-stroke injunctive relief feasible.

Key Cases Cited

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality requires a common contention capable of classwide resolution)
Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (typicality is satisfied when claims are reasonably coextensive with class members' claims)
Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1982) (class certification requires affirmative proof of prerequisites under Rule 23)
Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2001) (system-wide practice can satisfy commonality in ADA actions)
Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch., 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (lack of exhaustion and individualized remedial scheme can defeat certification in IDEA; not controlling here)
M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, 675 F.3d 832 (5th Cir. 2012) (Wal-Mart heightened standard discussed; still may certify where systemic deficiencies exist)
Gray v. Golden Gate N.R.A., 279 F.R.D. 501 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (commonality found in systemic access barriers despite differing disabilities)
D.L. v. Dist. of Col., 277 F.R.D. 38 (D.D.C. 2011) (commonality shown where all class members denied a statutorily protected service)