Case: State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Connecticut
3:06-cv-00179 | U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
Filed Date: Feb. 6, 2006
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On February 6, 2006, the State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities (an independent State agency charged with advocating for persons with disabilities), along with several persons with mental disabilities residing in nursing facilities, filed this lawsuit against the State of Connecticut, its Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, its Department of Public Health, and its Department of Social Services in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. Bringing their claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were violating these two acts by warehousing and segregating mentally ill patients in three nursing facilities that were either locked or severely restricted. The plaintiffs alleged these patients desired community-based treatment instead.
On March 31, 2010, the district court (Judge Alvin W. Thompson) denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and certified the case as a class action. The class consisted of persons with mental illness who desired to and were capable of receiving community-based treatment and were institutionalized in Chelsea Place Care Center, Bidwell Care Center, or West Rock Health Care Center or were at risk of entry into these facilities. 706 F. Supp. 2d 266.
Discovery proceeded throughout the rest of 2010 and into 2011. In April 2011, Judge Thompson granted the parties' joint motion to stay the case so that they could try to negotiate a settlement. For the next three years, the parties negotiated.
On June 17, 2014, the parties reached a settlement agreement, which was approved by Judge Thompson on July 2.
The settlement agreement required the State to ensure that all class members who were eligible for and desired community-based services in a community-based setting were afforded those services. The State was also required to explain the benefits of community-based services and settings to all class members. Moreover, even for those class members who chose to remain in the nursing homes (rather than take advantage of a community-based setting), the State would continue to discuss and recommend community-based settings with them. The parties also agreed to the appointment of a remedial expert to ensure the State's compliance with the settlement agreement. The court was to retain jurisdiction over the case for four years to ensure compliance.
The State also agreed to pay $1.3 million in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs.
Starting in 2014, the appointed Remedial Expert filed quarterly status reports to the district court outlining the State's progress toward compliance with the settlement agreement.
The court's jurisdiction was scheduled to end in July 2018. However, in January 2017, new class members, not subject to protections of the original settlement agreement, were identified. While defendants fully implemented and accomplished each benchmark within the timelines specified and were in compliance with the Settlement Agreement as to all other Class Members, the newly identified class members did not directly receive the specific protections of the settlement agreement. Thus the parties agreed to extend the jurisdiction with regards to these newly discovered class members only, for periods of six to eighteen months specific to the new class members, so that the defendants could give them the benefits of the settlement agreement. Quarterly reports were to continue through the extended period for the new class members. The court approved these provisions on June 25, 2018.
The original portions of the Settlement Agreement terminated pursuant to their terms on July 2, 2018. As of this update, the most recent status report was entered on April 22, 2019. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Michael Perry (1/25/2011)
Andrew Junker (10/22/2014)
Lauren Latterell Powell (10/21/2017)
Michael Beech (8/3/2020)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4880754/parties/state-of-ct-ofc-of-protection-advocacy-for-persons-with-disabilities-v/
Alisberg, Nancy B. (Connecticut)
Allen, Michael Gerhart (District of Columbia)
Arnett, Jennifer (New York)
Bossing, Lewis (District of Columbia)
Barber, Hugh (Connecticut)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4880754/state-of-ct-ofc-of-protection-advocacy-for-persons-with-disabilities-v/
Last updated March 26, 2026, 4:51 a.m.
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Public Benefits/Government Services
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 6, 2006
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
State Agency suing on behalf of a class of persons with mental illnesses who are housed in various nursing homes or in danger of being housed in them rather than being provided with community based treatment.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
NDRN/Protection & Advocacy Organizations
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
State
State of Connecticut
State of Connecticut Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services
State of Connecticut Department of Public Health
State of Connecticut Department of Social Services
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Other Dockets:
District of Connecticut 3:06-cv-00179
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Comply with advertising/recruiting requirements
Amount Defendant Pays: 1.3 million
Issues
General/Misc.:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Benefits (Source):
Disability and Disability Rights:
Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified
Discrimination Basis:
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Deinstitutionalization/decarceration
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Placement in mental health facilities
Medical/Mental Health Care:
Intellectual disability/mental illness dual diagnosis
Medicare eligibility determination
Mental health care, unspecified
Case Summary of State of Connecticut Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons With Disabilities v. Connecticut, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, http://www.dev.clearinghouse.net/case/11607/ (last updated 8/3/2020).