Oregon Court Rules that the ADA Integration Mandate Applies to Employment Services

Oregon had filed a Motion to Dismiss the case, arguing that:

1. Employment claims cannot be made under Title II of the ADA;
   
2. The "integration mandate" of the ADA (Olmstead) does not apply to employment services;
   
3. The case improperly asks the state to provide employment to the plaintiffs and to provide a certain standard of care in the state's provision of employment services.
   

In her ruling, Judge Stewart found:

1. "...this case does not involve 'employment,' but instead involves the state's provision (or failure to provide) 'integrated employment services, including supported employment programs.'"  The State's Motion to Dismiss on this basis was denied.
2. The integration mandate of Olmstead applies to employment services.  In making this determination, Judge Stewart gave deference to a recent US Department of Justice interpretation of the integration mandate that supports the Plaintiffs' position.  She rejected the State's argument that the Plaintiffs must show that failure to provide supported employment services will result in their residential institutionalization.  She also found that the lack of earlier court decisions on this legal issue does not weigh against its validity.  She writes: "...the broad language and remedial purposes of the ADA, the corresponding lack of any limiting language in either the ADA or the integration mandate itself, and the lack of any case law restricting the reach of the integration mandate suggest" that it applies to employment services.  The State's Motion to Dismiss on this basis was denied.
3. Some allegations in the complaint go beyond a request that Oregon "reallocate their available resources in a way that does not unjustifiably favor segregated employment in sheltered workshops at the expense of providing supported employment services to qualified individuals."  Wording in the complaint that can be construed to "seek the forbidden remedy of requiring defendants to provide an adequate level of employment services to enable plaintiffs to obtain a competitive job" must be removed.  For that reason, Judge Stewart granted the State's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice and With Leave to Amend, and gave the Plaintiffs until May 29 to file an Amended Complaint "to cure the problems identified in this Opinion and Order."