After experiencing a severe illness, Gary found himself in the hospital for a month, slowly losing control over his life. The doctors around him were making decisions for him, ultimately telling him he needed to be placed in a nursing home. Through talking with his doctor, Gary learned about AXIS, and was soon connected to Sue Bulger. As he and Sue worked together over the following months, Gary was able to regain his health, acquire financial assistance, receive equipment for his health needs, and return to his job. Instead of going to a nursing home, he returned to his own home.
A main problem that Gary recognizes in the health care system is the enormous amount of red tape people with disabilities have to endure in order to get what they need. He explained that Sue was a great advocate for him in the system and allowed him to by-pass the red tape involved in getting assistance. “I like the fact that they’re straight with you,” he said as he referred to his relationship with Sue. “The system is too complicated. AXIS has people who know the system and help to change it”
Furthermore, AXIS was able to do for Gary what no one else had yet done. Simply, AXIS asked Gary what he wanted to do instead of telling him what to do.
Through knowledgeable and experienced experts in the health care system, AXIS is able to coordinate a results-oriented, cost-efficient, and timely health plan for its consumers. More importantly, AXIS allows consumers to control the decisions they make in regards to maintaining healthy lives.
Both Sue and Gary share the belief that AXIS places great stress on building relationships with their consumers. Through trust and communication, Sue believes that AXIS can give the right kinds of medical attention to people with physical disabilities. “I think we can, one-by-one, make life better for people.” Life is definitely better now for Gary. He lives independently without the intrusion of people making decisions for him. “When you can focus, it makes all the difference.” His focus can be on other things – such as preparing for his son’s marriage.
From New Mobility, December 2003
HOW TO DEFEND THE ADA By Amy Robertson
I am writing in response to your article, “Who Lost the ADA?” (September 2003). It was an excellent overview with excellent suggestions for activism. I write to offer a single perspective on the status of the ADA and two specific suggestions for what readers can do about it. My perspective is that of a lawyer whose practice is devoted to the ADA. While the Supreme Court has been hard on the ADA, Supreme Court decisions on other civil rights laws and lower court decisions on more obscure procedural issues have been far more destructive.
Following the Supreme Court’s ADA decisions—even if we lose Tennessee v. Lane and even if Title II (the ADA section that applies to governmental entities) is held to violate the constitution—we can still bring lawsuits under Title I (employment) and Title II. The only thing Garrett (and Lane, if we lose) prevent is lawsuits for damages against state. So if your Title II lawsuit is against, say, the local public transit agency, it will be unaffected by the Garrett or Lane decisions.
Even if your claim is against the state itself, you can still file a lawsuit to make the state change its behavior—provide an accommodation, install a ramp, modify discriminatory criteria—you just can’t ask for damages. The worst Garrett and Lane can do is make Title I (against a state) and Title II more like Title III (public accommodations): you can sue to change behavior, but not for damages. Not great, but certainly far from fatal.
Far worse are the Supreme Court and lower court decisions on such eye-glaze-over topics as standing, mootness, class actions, private rights of action, and the catalyst theory of attorneys’ fees. Boring as these topics may be—how much easier is it to rally support with the headline, “Supreme Court Declares Title I Unconstitutional” than with “Supreme Court Rules Catalyst Theory Unavailable” - decisions on these topics severely restrict the ability of people with disabilities to get into court in the first place. They also restrict the ability of Disability advocacy organizations to bring ADA claims and the use of class actions as a device to make systemic change.
These decisions are going the wrong way for two reaons: lawyers are not doing their homework and therefore bringing claims that are easily attacked; and judges who are hostile to the ADA. There are simple solutions to both of these problems.
