Here, APC relies upon legislatively conferred causes of action – Title II of the ADA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act – which together proscribe discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Using the traditional tools of statutory interpretation, this Court in Todd held “that Title II protects only ‘individual[s] with a disability,’” and that “associational discrimination claims are not cognizable under Title II of the ADA,” or section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination by government entities in access to public services. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Similarly, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides, “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976, 978 (9th Cir.1997) (citing to 42 U.S.C. § 12132). In addition, to recover damages under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove “intentional discrimination on the part of the defendant” which requires a showing of “deliberate indifference.”

This is the opposite of what United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) guidance explains as being the “most integrated setting,” which is “a setting that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with nondisabled persons to the fullest extent possible . . . .” 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 appx. B. Case 1:16-cv-00735-LJV Document 17-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 12 of 29 8 A. Plaintiff Potential Residents Are Not Plausibly Alleged to Be Institutionalized or Isolated In passing Title II of the ADA, Congress sought to ensure that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. In Olmstead, the Supreme Court recognized that the ADA prohibits the institutionalization of those who are capable of residing in the community.

Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities – state and local governments and their agencies – from excluding qualified individuals with disabilities from participating in or denying them the benefits of their services, programs, or activities or from otherwise subjecting them to discrimination, by reason of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).

Plaintiffs are likely to succeed in showing that they have been subject to unlawful discrimination under the ADA by virtue of Defendants’ policy of failing to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities under the D-SNAP program. The ADA protects disabled individuals from discrimination in various forms, see 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and it must be construed broadly to effectuate its anti-discriminatory purpose. Henrietta D., 119 F. Supp. 2d at 205.

(pp. 17-23) 13 In 1990, responding to the history of discrimination against people with disabilities, Congress enacted the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. To address and remedy the “serious and pervasive social problem” of discrimination against individuals with disabilities, 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2), Congress required that "no qualified individual with a disability shall ... be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of any public entity ...." 42 U.S.C. § 12132; See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b) (discrimination includes denying or not affording an opportunity for people with disabilities to benefit from services either equal to or as effective as those afforded nondisabled persons).

Similarly, the ADA prohibits public entities from excluding qualified individuals with disabilities from participating in or receiving the benefits of “the services, programs, or Case 1:15-cv-00055-CKK Document 54-3 Filed 10/28/16 Page 7 of 33 8 activities” of that entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Although the text of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act differ, courts frequently interpret them analogously.

Section12132 of the ADA states “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2015) (emphasis added). Similarly, The Rehab Act was enacted “to ensure that handicapped individuals are not denied jobs or other benefits because of prejudiced attitudes or ignorance of others.”

But Defendants administer their service systems in ways that prevent Plaintiffs, and thousands of other Ohioans, from achieving these goals. Plaintiffs have come to the Court for relief from Defendants’ ongoing violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), and the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396n(c)(2)(B) and (C). Rather than respond directly to these claims, Defendants seek to avoid them.