Click here to review court decisions and settlement agreements regarding cases below.
Bushnell v. Natali-obtained a court order finding the landlord had intentionally discriminated against our clients based on their disability and requiring him to allow both of them to be listed on the residential lease. The court also granted their motions for attorney fees.
Levy v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections-obtained a class action settlement on behalf of probationers and parolees under supervision of LA DPSC who have hearing impairments, who had not been provided with ASL interpreters or other auxiliary aids & services in their meetings with parole officers, or in classes and therapy sessions they are required to complete as conditions of probation or parole. Among other things, the agreement requires LDPSC to arrange for a Communication Assessment to be conducted at the initial Intake Meeting with an Affected Individual to determine whether and to what extent the Affected Individual requires the assistance of a Qualified, Certified Sign Language Interpreter or other reasonable accommodation to communicate effectively in his or her interactions with LDPSC and to provide the interpreter or accommodation, if needed. Click to see a copy of the settlement agreement.
With the assistance of a national expert on deaf communication, obtained a favorable Louisiana Division of Administrative Law decision that an individual seeking development disability services whose primary disability was being deaf was entitled to be provided with such services.
Davis v. May Department Stores-obtained a class action settlement in a case brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act on behalf of persons with mobility impairments who shopped or wanted to shop at department stores owned by the defendant but were prevented from doing so because the store aisles were not maintained in a manner that permitted wheelchair users to access products from the aisles. The settlement agreement required the Department stores to maintain its aisles in an accessible manner for persons with mobility impairments.
Garrity v. Gallen authored an amicus brief in a case brought in 1978 by the Association of Retarded Citizens, together with several parents, as a federal court class action suit challenging conditions at an institution for persons with intellectual disabilities. The parents sought through the lawsuit to close the institution and replace it with a comprehensive system of community-based services. In 1981, the federal court issued a decision favorable to the plaintiffs. On January 31, 1992, 15 years after the suit was brought, the state closed the doors to its only institution for people with developmental disabilities and became the first state in the country whose developmental service system did not include a state-run institution.
Hansen v. Harris-obtained a favorable decision by the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a district court decision that a delay in filing for benefits was attributable to erroneous advice from an SSA field representative and that the federal government was required to provide retroactive from the date of the erroneous advice. Unfortunately for our client, the United States Supreme Court in a per curiam decision (a decision not signed by any judge), with Justice Marshall dissenting, reversed the Court of Appeals and held that estoppel cannot be used against the federal government.
In re Richard M. – obtained an appellate court decision reversing and remanding a hearing officer’s finding that our client was not eligible for services under the state’s developmental services system on the grounds that the agency’s interpretation of the eligibility requirements was at odds with the language of the statute.
Trovato v. City of Manchester-obtained a federal court order on behalf of our clients, both of whom had muscular dystrophy, that the city was required, as a reasonable accommodation under the Fair Housing Act and the ADA, to grant them permission to build a paved parking space in front of their home. The court also granted their motion for attorney fees.
