Arc. v. Quasim is the class action lawsuit our firm filed on behalf of the Arc of Washington and three named plaintiffs in November 1999. The lawsuit demands that people who have requested Medicaid-funded services, and who have been found eligible for those services, be given those services with reasonable promptness.

After conducting discovery and mediation, we reached an agreement with the state. The agreement was for $14 million additional dollars in the 2003 supplemental budget, with an amount to be agreed upon later in the following biennium. The lawsuit would remain "stayed" or on hold until the funds were agreed upon and appropriated, and if they were not, a trial would be held at that time. The state's major concern was to prevent further litigation for several years, so in exchange for the funds the plaintiffs agreed to waive certain claims of class members until 2006.

The parties proposed the settlement to the judge and asked for his approval. Before the judge ruled regarding approval of the settlement, two agencies (Washington Protection and Advocacy System and Columbia Legal Services) filed motions asking for permission to intervene. This was because they had concerns about the settlement. The judge denied their motions to intervene, but sent the parties back to the negotiating table to address some of the agencies' concerns. The judge suggested that we divide the class into subclasses: DDD clients who are on the CAP waiver and those who are not. Two additional lawyers will now work with us, representing the subclasses while we represent the Arc as an entity. An additional mediation session has been scheduled with the state, and it appears that we may be able to reach a revised agreement to propose to the judge for his preliminary approval. If we receive that preliminary approval, notice will be sent out to all class members and a fairness hearing will be held. Final approval of the settlement will then be sought.

Please feel free to contact us with any questions about the suit.

The next time you pick out a book, you may want to try one of these. We also would enjoy your feedback about your favorite disability-focused books.

The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks. This collection contains several short accounts of patients of Oliver Sacks, an acclaimed neurologist. Tourette's syndrome, autism, aphasia, and other disorders are explored through Sacks' enjoyable perspective.

Icy Sparks by Gwyn Hyman Rubio. Entertaining story of a young woman with Tourette's who grows up in the South, and how she learns to accept herself and her disability.

The Siege by Clara Parks Claiborne. Claiborne writes a detailed account of her young daughter's autism, and the steps she took to communicate with her. Although some of the author's perspectives seem outdated, this is nevertheless an interesting account of autism and its manifestation in one particular child.

No Pity by Robert Shapiro. This journalist's account of the disability rights movement sometimes borders on the radical, but contains stories and history that are worth reading.

Some of our clients have called with concerns about Toyota v. Williams, the latest ADA case handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case is about a woman who got carpal tunnel syndrome and other repetitive stress injuries by working at her job on an assembly line at Toyota. She argued that her employer refused to assign her to doing only tasks that did not aggravate her injuries. She also asserted that she was disabled from performing a range of manual tasks.

The Sixth Circuit Court had agreed as a matter of law that Ms. Williams was disabled from performing manual tasks. Toyota appealed on that issue. The Supreme Court found that the Sixth Circuit Court was incorrect in finding her disabled from performing manual tasks as a matter of law, because she could still bathe, brush her teeth, and do other activities of "central importance in most people''s lives." The Supreme Court therefore sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit to revisit the issue in light of their opinion.

What application does this case have to others with disabilities? The ADA requires that a plaintiff prove an impairment that "substantially limits a major life activity." In this case, the Supreme Court says that whether a "particular major life activity" is "substantially limited" must be decided based on each person''s circumstance, and not just based on the type of the disability they allege, since any particular disability can have a broad range of effects. In other words, each employee's situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

In Washington state, most employment discrimination cases are brought under state law (RCW 49.60), since its definition of disability is much broader than the ADA. Toyota v. Williams and other ADA cases therefore may not have much impact on employment litigation in Washington state at present.

We also believe persons with developmental disabilities are likely to be found disabled under any reinterpretation of the ADA law by the courts.