Landmark Court Cases

Year	Court Case
1954	In Brown v. Board of Education, the United States Supreme Court found that "separate facilities are inherently unequal." Congress has subsequently regarded Brown as equally important in prohibiting segregation on the basis of disability. This decision influenced future disability legislation, including the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
1970	In Wyatt v. Stickney, the Federal District Court for the Middle District of Alabama held that individuals with a mental illness or developmental disability have a constitutional right to treatment "that will afford them a realistic opportunity to return to society. In 1970, the guardian of Ricky Wyatt initiated a class action suit against the Alabama Department of Mental Hygiene, alleging failure of the state to provide proper treatment at the Partlow State School and Hospital. The decree, issued by the Court, stipulated that all community resources must first be explored before admission to an institution is considered, no individual should remain in a residential facility longer than necessary, and no person should be returned to the community indiscriminately. US District Court Judge Frank Johnson's decision included a 20-page appendix that defined minimum treatment standards. The intent was clear that an institution should only be used as a last resort and only if the individual's needs can be met. Wyatt helped to pave the way for deinstitutionalization and gave greater visibility to the potential impact of the legal system on improving the lives of people with disabilities.
1971	Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children et al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania et al . was a landmark decision by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that affirmed the right of children with disabilities to a free public education and certain due process procedural safeguards. This case was significant in that it challenged the very existence of institutions.
1972	Mills v. Board of Education was similar to, and supported and expanded the Pennsylvania case. Mills held that no child could be denied a public education because of "mental, behavioral, physical, or emotional handicaps or deficiencies." During the trial, an exchange took place between the judge and representatives of the District of Columbia. The state apparently agreed that all children should be educated and classes established as soon as Congress appropriated the funds. In response, the judge said, "If sufficient funds are not available to finance all of the services and programs that are needed and desirable in the system then the available funds must be expended equitably in such a manner that no child is entirely excluded from a publicly supported education consistent with his needs and ability to benefit therefrom. The inadequacies of the District of Columbia public school system, whether occasioned by insufficient funding or administrative inefficiency, certainly cannot be permitted to bear more heavily on the exceptional or handicapped child than on the normal child." Dr. Gunnar Dybwad made the following observation about Mills: "Every so often we hear, 'We will take care of the disabled when we find some money'. No, they have the right to the good and the bad with all of us."
1975	New York State Association for Retarded Citizens et al. v. Carey et al., a class action brought against the state of New York in 1972, alleged multiple violations at the Willowbrook State School and Hospital on Staten Island. At the beginning of this lawsuit, Willowbrook housed 5,200 people and was 65% over the rated bed capacity. Allegations included: Most residents were confined for unspecified periods, usually until they recovered. Residents who should have been released were not. No habilitation was occurring to justify the confinement of residents. There was no individual habilitation plan for residents. There were no periodic evaluations of residents to assess their progress and redefine their goals and programs. There were no educational programs provided for residents. Services such as speech therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy were inadequate, if available at all. The facility was overcrowded. The residents had no privacy, and regulations to protect them from theft of personal property were nonexistent. The residents were not protected against assault and injury, either by other residents or staff. Experimentation was practiced on residents. Residents were not given adequate clothing. The diet was inadequate, and the meals were rushed. The facility was dirty. Toilet facilities were not adequate to accommodate the institutional population. Residents were segregated from those of the opposite sex. Many residents were confined to beds or chairs, or kept in solitary confinement. Many residents were denied privileges on the grounds of the institution and practically no one was given a pass. Residents were not given help in reading, writing, or posting mail. Non-English speaking residents had difficulty communicating. Residents were not compensated for work performed. The facility was understaffed with professionals and paraprofessionals. The absence of proper supervision contributed to the death of some residents, where the cause of death was attributed to aspiration of food or vomit. Medical facilities were inadequate. Many of the professional staff were shown to be incompetent. After three years, a consent decree was approved by the Court. The decree called for a major upgrading of the facility's programs, recognition of the residents' rights, and a ten-year phase down of the residential population to no more than 250 individuals.

Rep. Tony Coelho Testifies at the 1988 ADA Hearings

(Video is open-captioned)

And so it is time that out government recognized our abilities and gave us the dignity to do what we can do. As a young man, I developed seizures, later diagnosed as epilepsy.

For many years, for five years, as I had my seizures on a regular basis, I did not know what they were. I went to every doctor that you could think of. I also went to three witch doctors, because i was supposedly possessed by the devil. My Republican colleagues think i am, but other believed i was.

And as I went to college, I was an achiever. I got outstanding grades in high school, outstanding grades in college, student body president in high school and college, I was outstanding senior in college. I was sought after by different businesses and groups to be involved in their activities and be employed by them. And I had decided that I wanted to be an attorney.

In my senior year I changed my mind. I decided I wanted to become a Catholic priest. And as I graduated with honors, I then had a physical exam in order to enter the seminary. The physical exam pointed out that the seizures I'd been having for five years meant that I had epilepsy. I always remember very well what happened, and that I walked to the doctor's office from my car, sat in the doctor's office, was told about my epilepsy, walked back to my car, got back in my car, and drove back to my fraternity house, and i was the same exact person, but only in my own mind, because the world around me changed.

My doctor had to notify the legal authorities of my epilepsy. My church was notified and immediately I was not able to become a Catholic priest. Because my church did not, at the time, permit epileptics to be priests. My driver's license was taken away, my insurance was taken away. Every job application has the word epilepsy on it and I marked it because I was not going to lie. And I couldn't get a job. My parents refused to accept my epilepsy. I became suicidal and drunk by noon. And the only reason is… because I hadn't changed as a person… the only reason is that the world had changed around me.

And the light had been turned off around me, the light of opportunity, the light of hope, and not until a priest friend of mine turned me over to a man of hope by the name of Bob Hope did the light get lit again. And I'm here today, serving in the capacity that I serve, because some people believed. Not because my government protected me, not because my government protected my basic civil rights.

So I'm a major advocate of this bill because i want to make sure that other young people, as they're looking for hope, as they believe that the system should work for them, have that hope, have that opportunity. What happened at Gallaudet University as not only an inspiration, I'm sure, to the hearing-impaired. What happened at Gallaudet University was an inspiration to all of us with disabilities, in that if we ourselves believe in ourselves and are willing to stand up we can make a difference.

That's what this bill is all about. Thirty six million Americans deciding it's time to stand up for ourselves to make a difference. To say we want our basic civil rights also. We deserve it. And give us an opportunity to do what we can do. Don't keep telling us what we can't do. I thank my colleagues.