motion to intervene as of right first because appellant's interest is clearly implicated in litigation in which their ability to reside in the community is being adjudicated second appellants interest may be affected or impaired as a practical matter because the relief sought doesn't ensure that their current opposition to community placement will protect them in the future can you can you start with your first point explain to me because i did of course it in your briefing repeatedly raise you know in essence we are two in the class it seemed like the court was doing everything you could to say if you don't if you if you want to be where you are you're not part of this group and in fact the language seen to the original not the reformulated class and league is but the original class and legal it seemed to track the language of olmstead how how did the court misstep there why do you think that after framing it the way it did that your clients who say we don't want to be in the class are somehow in the  class i would like to address that question your honor first by discussing the interest involved here the court the plaintiffs have asserted that all residents of the i c after the public i c s in pennsylvania can be moved to community care and the state the commonwealth has not opposed that they had made it that the court the relief they saw had to do with people who do not want to move into the community you're on to the second prong of the class definition identifies individuals who can be moved to the community the third prong of the class definition provides that individuals who oppose being moving to the community or would oppose being moved to the community in the future are not of the class but it's important to recognize that in the court's decision to deny him the appellant's motion to intervene the court specifically found that the appellants could be moved to the community and that community placement would be appropriate for them there's been no facts put before the court i suppose that the gore did not so i that the relief sought by the plaintiffs in this action does not have anything to do with these interveners the relief sought you said you wanted to discuss the class definition later so i was asking you first is there anything in this record that indicates that like the relief that the pla three ninety if you look at page two ninety six of the record before you the plaintiffs proposed order on summary judgment contains provisions for the identification of class members and that proposed order would require the commonwealth to ask all residents of public i c s m r every year whether or not they oppose being moved to the community ok so your problem is that the commonwealth will come back and ask again well you honor the commonwealth if the plaintiff's relief which they seek is granted the commonwealth will be forced to ask again and again year after year and which at which they're not bothered by evidently the commonwealth isn't opposing it right that's correct your honor and i think that that does  o to whether or not the commonwealth is adequately representing my client's interests below but on the on the point of harm or potential harm to my client's interests my clients are before you today because their guardians have stood up and if if say we oppose correct your honor the basic care i'm sorry there will be what would you say the proposed order would require a response every year and your concern that at some time in the future the to pass away or to become incapacitated for some reason and were not able to stand up for the interests of their client there is some question about what would be required of a severely mentally handicapped individual to sufficiently indicate their opposition to being why their their their individual moved to the community they could they could certainly voice their opinion yes or no about whether whether they were in opposition but the question is for instance my client a family member who has this forty six year old is severely mentally retarded has the somebody be a replacement guardian i mean what you're posing is as a hypothetical what i think everybody's taking as a given which is these are people who can't really speak adequately for themselves but they do have guardian and those and it's within the realm of possibility that ms lambo or her guardian some combination of this is making between the two might change their mind what's wrong with a class where the court says nobody's going to make you move if you don't want to move and if you change your mind some day the commonwealth last year and let's just take a step back and note that this while this court has found that the further interest in impairment prongs of the intervention analysis are automatically satisfied by class membership that doesn't mean that you have to be a class member in order to merit intervention and here in addition to the potential that we will become class members in the future we also there is also a risk that the remedy the plaintiffs are seeking is likely to result in a severe reduction of the populations that population of these and function and if you want to move to another topic that's ok with with me mr smith but i want to make sure i understand your argument are you a knowledge that at least the way it's framed whether you're comfortable with the commonwealth coming back to your clients in the future or not at least the way it's framed your clients are not members of this class we are at present not members of the class because we currently oppose being moved ok now then fine let's move to your second point which is as i understand it is even if we're not in class we're going to be affect correct ok yes so as to the i guess to the point about us being affected in a practical way which is the standard under the impairment problem of the intervention ounces in a practical way by the remedy that's being sought the first point that i wanted to raise was that we would need to remain constantly vigilant in order to avoid being swept in the class the second point is that the practical result of the relief sought will be the reduction in the significant reduction of the population of the  that is likely to result in the closure of some or all of the i c s m r now that's true if that's true don't doesn't your argument hinge on the assertion that your clients have a right not just institutional care but to care in a specific institution that is their intitled to be in a more screen around making names but i know there's actually one there but you know that that that's the one and i get this they they're not but they're inside of the institutional care the court has found below that we could be moved to the community and so that puts us at risk if at a later time the state attempts to move us to the community and we need to push we need to proceed in enforcing our rights to stay in an institution in some administrative tribunal of the state where while we would certainly contest that there's any race to the cutter collateral estoppel fact in the courts finding about our ability to reside in the community it's certainly naive to think that the state administrative tribunal would simply brush past a district court finding of that fact second i think that depending on the circumstances of the party for the particular individual there may be a right under the a d f a and olmsted to remain in a particular institution so yours arena you're saying that that is our position that it's possible that certain individuals would have the right to remain in a particular institution own stead how that the a t a i entitled individuals to the most integrating set integrated setting appropriate to their needs and sense of that this what this can mean and this is a quote from the opinion that's a setting that enables individuals to interact with non disabled persons to the fullest extent possible now so that my clients for instance may reside in  white haven center for example which is very close to their families and that's the only interaction with non disabled persons that they ever have if we were to move them from the white haven center all the way across the state to for example the polk center which is six hours away from person volved but but what you're saying is that as a matter of federal law there is a right under the age to be institutionalized close to the family when it comes down to you and i don't believe that that's what it comes down to i believe that we're entitled to intervene whether or not that right exists a federal law we're entitled to intervene because our interest in our own care is at issue in the in the in the litigation blau because the court is deciding and has decided that we could live in the community and in the future that may become an issue when the state attempts to muster meaning community i mean i understand your example with regard to the family  that talks about community they're not including you know familial committee in their definition of community that seems to have broadened that much more than owns that and and  i think that also found that it for is some individuals institutionalization is discriminatory precisely because it does not allow them to act as other non disabled persons do in their everyday lives and they focus on this what authority is there that your clients have the ability to choose the facility i mean it's your only basis is the potentially could provide us with a right but i just want to reiterate and i do not believe that it's necessary to find that we have that right or that we don't have that right in order for us to merit intervention in this case and a lot and the reason you say that is because you say the court said at some point we could be in the community and that's the way we're like you're right the court said that we could be in the community and that as a practical matter could affect us in the future y you could be in the community with appropriate services yes or hiding the people in a particular situation and they are not going to put anybody in there if their condition is not such that they don't have the adequate services in the reside in the community with appropriate services and supports needs to be viewed with with realistic bounds and i don't think that the court was suggesting that with appropriate services and supports would entail moving and i see f m r into a community there are individuals who require institutional care and in fact justice kennedy's concurrence in the homestead decision to recognize that and warn courts not to proceed too rapidly through this process without  and potentially damaging people's people's right to remain in an institution it seems to me you're saying we may as a practical matter whether or not we're included in the class as a practical matter we may be affected because there are limited resources and the department may choose to well have to implement the relief that's being given here and that may mean that some institutions will be closed because public funds are limited now is that can we live with a rule that anybody that is competing for public resources is entitled to intervene in a case having to do that's going to put a burden on public resources i realize you say that the relief here somehow is designed so that it will that they're asking for relief that will directly affect the interveners i have trouble seeing that it is clearly if they were asking you to leave that would have a direct effect on the industry you would be entitled to intervene as a right but assuming that the relief will not directly affect them is it sufficient to say well the pennsylvania's going to have to fund anything that comes out of this lawsuit and they're going to have to find the money somewhere and limited budget and therefore since i'm in the budget and want things the finance by the budget that i'm well you know i think what makes this situation different from the hypothetical that you post is that the state here has conceded that when they move one individual from an institution they don't save any money unless they close the entire wing of that institution of the institution so i think that it's not merely speculative that that funds will be transferred away from these institutions and and that that will have an effect on us i think  that there's evidence in the record below demonstrating that there's a likely practical effect of this of this of the proposed remedy i'd also like to point out that the plaintiffs proposed remedy on summary judgment which i pointed to earlier at page two ninety six of the record in seeking to identify class members makes no provision for the individual determination of who should be put into the community if the plaintiff's remedy is granted failure to oppose were quire the state to put you want to the individual on a planning list to be but place you like a guardian why why is that a particular concern i mean presumably the guardian would step in even in your hypothetical which i think jordan responded adequately which is you know there'd be a substitute guardian that guardian will be able to act on your client or whoever's the have and respond in a way that's appropriate for them if it's someone who's higher functioning then your client maybe they do they go but they'll have the opportunity to vote express their thoughts on where they should be it's is certainly possible that some of my clients would wind up with a substitute guardian in the future if one of their current guardians were to pass away or to become incapacitated for some other reason ceased being their guardian but it's also possible that my clients would just become wards of the state and in that respect i think it's important to recognize that all of my clients here who have been the only individuals in any of the i c s who have stood up and voice their opposition at this point being moved are those who have  you would you you would contend would you do it because some people disagree with the commonwealth that the partment is so facto inadequate representative of the interests of mentally disabled folks w mean that's that's a pretty that would be a pretty dramatic position to take that you just can't trust the commonweal that that's not our position your honor her position is first that the district court abuse is discretion because in ruling that the commonwealth adequately represented our interest it held that we had failed to show gross negligence on the part of the commonwealth which is not the standard in the circuit the standard in the circuit is a mere presumption that a state agency adequately represents the interests of individuals that is charged with representing and here that presumption is rebutted by the fact that the state didn't oppose at any point below that all individuals in the institutions are capable of being moved to the community with appropriate services present that when you put the qualifier on it i suppose you say well realistically that can't mean appropriate services because they're not going to build an institution for one purpose but that's that's a very strong qualifier proceedings below that there is not an individual in the institutions for whom they're not serving an equivalent person in the community which would seem to suggest that in fact there are services in this in supports in the community that could be provided for any one  these institutions we fundamentally disagree with that we don't think that that's true but we are being for prevented from from testing those those factual assumptions below ok thank you any thank you with no thank you though thank you very much mr smith esposito representing amicus voice of the retarded or vor v o r thank you for allowing me to speak today the o r is a nationwide nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to ensuring that individuals with mental retardation receive the care and support they need in the settings appropriate to fulfill those needs v o r is not opposed to community based care v o r advocates for a range of care and services there are certain serious risks associated with the mass movement of disabled individuals to community settings these risks of abuse neglect and serious health concerns are due in part to the decreased oversight that exists in community settings contrary to statements in i mean i guess the ark's prefer and not mr smith's clients are entitled to intervene in this particular action i think i understand the position of voices of the retarded a to b as you  intervention the rights of those individuals who do not wish to leave the i c s m r will not be protected and we feel that the serious risks associated with community settings to be  i guess the strength and importance of those interests well the result is your position that the resolution of the class action  yes we think that there is that serious possibility that because this is brought as a class action and not merely on behalf of the named plaintiffs who are seeking community placement that the result could be closing all five remaining i c s m r and while there are private i c s m r we don't believe that those are really a true substitute due in large part to the fact that there is a lengthy wait list for those institutions so it really is not a viable option to to go into those facilities so is is the argument the argument that intervention will your argument isn't that this class action itself is inappropriate is a are you saying that a class action itself was is is not an appropriate vehicle under these circumstances no we're certainly not saying that a class action is not an appropriate vehicle were simply say saying that because this was brought is a class action the interests of the interveners are at serious risk and your honor referenced the likeness case and when you look at that case that was a case where potential interveners were not allowed to intervene a settlement was negotiated and there were i believe thousands of objections presented at the fairness hearing which caused the court to reject the settlements wasn't that wasn't the class definition of changed i mean isn't it the fact that the class definition which was a pell by the seventh circuit was changed by the district court and then there were mass objections to it that led to the survey cation my right factually i but yes yesterday so the decertification in the massive objections that were made they're not really pertinent to what we're dealing with because what we're dealing with this is a class shaped on the same lines as the class certification which the seventh circuit upheld that lead us not the classification as it changed proposed intervenors in that matter agreed with being presented to the court and at this at this point of fairness hearing is scheduled and they do not anticipate there being any objections based on the participation of those individuals thank you  good morning your honor is may please the court my name is carl salon while i am a guardian for my sister diane who is a resident at one of the centers in white haven i am here representing her as an amicus and i want to thank the court for allowing me permission to argue on her behalf today thank you to have yours your honor what's the interest and how does it affect the way and it's lived at the white haven center for forty five years that's what she knows as her home she knows the people there who care for her she knows the facilities that is all she knows she has a mental age of one year or less she is incapable of living in community judge jordan you ask is there a ri live in a specific center i believe there is i believe that for someone in that situation who has lived there their entire life they have an interest and your honor the question under the crease or pace i think i said that right which i believe is of the court's primary authority with respect to intervention is it does not have to be illegal right under federal law it has to be a protected interest there certainly is an interest in maintaining your home there is a further interest under state law we cite the beer case in the easly case in the amicus brief in which state courts have recognized an interest in staying there when you have lived there as my commonwealth court case in pennsylvania they're not precisely on point point but i believe judge stapleton when you read them you'll see that they recognize an interest in living in a facility of longstanding duration and those facilities state center can be new moved to the community everyone and the commonwealth has contended and the state has agreed that the policy is to move everyone to a state center now the state the plaintiffs say and the commonwealth agrees that the protection against that is opposition if you oppose it we can't force you to move i want to get to that in a second to talk about garden bus the fact of the matter is that this litigation if successful will result in deep population of most of the centers it is a financial obvious obviously a financial necessity that some of the facilities will have to close you can't keep them all open judge stapleton it's not a question of competing for government funds there's more to it than that it's a question of how do you choose where you are going to spend specific government funds with respect to housing mentally incapacitated individuals under circumstances where they have been living in these facilities for forty five years suggest i submit judge greenaway that we're you have individuals who have been living in these the syllabi for his long as they have and where that is the only care and in effect family that they know they have an interest and judge greenaway i'm trying to be careful here and say interest because that's the language of rule twenty four not right not federal right not beagle right it is interest they have any interest in staying in those the syllabi status the sufficient to allow them to be heard i think we need to be clear here i think we all agree no one in this case certainly not the beaner certainly not me nobody in this case opposes the revoke ation of any resident of any of the centers who is capable of being relocated and who wants to move how would how would you have had the district court framed the class the district court clearly was it pains to try to make sure that nobody like yourself speaking for your sister diane who didn't want to be moved into the community would be found in any way by this class that seems i mean would you agree that that seems to be the focus and effort of the way the class was fra i agree that that was the effort yes your honor ok so if the court misstep somehow how what should the court have said or done or could the court have done anything that would have given you as a concerned guardian for your sister and others like you the sense of peace of mind or comfort that what's being done here is addressed to people seeking community based housing and not people like my sister who does not want to move who i don't want to have how could they have done it differently given or done it different your honor in terms of class definition there may not have been anything further that the court could have done your honor isin this and i disagree with my colleague was esposito i submit that a class could be certified here there are so many individualized issues they predominate in so way particularly on a twenty three b to non opt out class that there cannot possibly be the cohesiveness necessary to permit classification but we're not talking here about class certification we're talking about intervention and so yes maybe the classification order try to protect that right the question is whether the individuals who made the outside that class in my argument assumes i'm not a member of this class i will assume that the question is whether their interests nevertheless are so affected that they should be permitted to participate in this litigation and your honor we submit they do because the interest is strong and because the interest is clearly going to be affected it's because some of these institutions are going to need hols now your honor i know i'm out of time but let me just talk for a second about guardians because your honor the record says that eighty two percent of the residents of these institutions have no guardians that's a page to thirty eight there's a charge which you can calculate the guardian's that they do have are dying their guardians their parents in some situation siblings such as myself can get appointed as new guardians in many cases that doesn't happen the families live far away the family said had known so ca sion with these individuals and as a result they get new guardian and your honor there is some chilling testimony in the record which you can find and i can find a cite for you in the second enrich you will see that it is the position of the plaintiffs the position with which the state agreed at a deposition that once a guardian dies the guardian's opposition no longer counts that the family opposition no longer counts that at that point the individual is considered a ward of the state and is a question of whether the state opposes it and of course we know they don't because it is the state powerless e to favor removal from the institution and it is the state's statement that it's all individuals can be removed from the institution the deposition cite your honor is at page two twenty six to two twenty eight of the appendix so your honor the central point here is that you are dealing with an extraordinarily vulnerable population of individuals these are people that cannot make decisions for themselves if you look at that same page of the chart which i cite if you were bennett ago you will see that when they asked what is your view about moving to the community seventy five percent didn't say anything because you're incapable of seeing anything they don't understand the question most of them don't have guardians it is impossible to discern what their needs are what the wants are what their desires are and so they are extraordinarily vulnerable to any incorrect decision being made they have needs medical needs care needs security needs and there is an extraordinary risk in this case that if a wrong decision is made it would be catastrophic all we're asking for here is a seat at the table so that we can make sure that the decision is made correctly and with knowledge of all of the issues because we how how would intervention meet the concern you just raise i understand the concern you just raised to be the vast majority of the population don't have guardians and so no one can speak him and the states not can and i don't want to put words in your mouth you would perhaps put it this harshly but in effect is he saying the commonwealth has its financial interests here and their interest is to get people into the community so they're not really going to be paying what would intervention do to address that problem that the that there are a large population there wards of the state they don't have guardians and they make a move to a community based housing when they would rather not be how does it needing to the case or allowing intervention of people who do have guardians good address the problems you identified we can assure that the factual and legal issues in the case  appropriately framed and litigate isn't the court has to correct facts for example this case starts with a stipulation the way the they allege it the commonwealth concedes in effect a stipulation that these individuals are isolated in rule institutions so that they are not sufficiently integrated into the community they make it sound like they're in the middle a site period siberia my sister is in white haven my parents deliberately placed her in white haven because about thirty minutes away from where they live just outside of work spare just in the poconos at the hamburg facility just thirty minutes from allentown since going to suspend about it they're not in the middle of nowhere they are not isolated as they have also lots of activities outside that's one fact your honor that we would contest second fact we would contest facts is the answer and i can give you other examples your honor for your point then if i  get it is your point is by speaking for those who do have guardians the court would have a different perspective overall much different perspective they would have the facts which right now it doesn't have because the facts are stipulated to the contrary  litigation and i believe the commonwealth has as well is to protect the interests of persons like the interveners who do oppose community services and that's why the class was framed as it was that's why the relief we sought was framed as it was and the interveners will not have any impact upon them by any relief granted by the court and their interest if i may speak to mr smith's points their interests  there there right is it's under medicaid this he's facilities are funded through the medicaid program which is a joint state federal program where the state pays approx me fifty cents of fifty percent of the costs in the federal government pays the other fifty percent the the problem is that the medicaid program also requires people to receive services from any willing provider willian able provider so there are providers  real interest of the appellant's is is this the continue right to i c f m are services not the particular ice after which they currently reside so if the state or at some point in the future to stop operating state one or more state operated i c s the appellant's would still have the right to i said from our services i'll be at a different location but they would still have that right and that cannot be by the parties so if they do not add anything to the conversation he let the speaker your salon knows point and mr meek which is that they do have something to add because the court isn't getting an accurate have under what's proposed either specifically vote or voice your opposition so therefore it would appear putting the two together eighty two percent of the people have no ability to voice their opposition  and that's their concern that that particular fact be taken into account in the lawsuit and it's one of their indicia as to why they should be permitted to intervene again your honor i think the judge  me this point there are interveners so that their guardians have guardians so they can really speak to that but where the point because these are the state is in fact operating as a de facto guardian for many people because family members and either die or no longer have contact and the individual has no garden or other family member willing to take responsibility for the individual and the fact that the state and i don't mean the state but the facility director and can do a great job of protecting their interests and and caring for them but those are the individuals that should be end all are in place to protect the interests as to whether an individual is oppose or not opposed to s the position that they've got is this the commonwealth has a fundamental interest financially in getting people into lower cost  housing so they're going to move people if they don't say stop and people can say stop by definition because the population is people who are mentally disabled and the state and the commonwealth is saying no matter how many times the guardians the people you know the loving parents siblings and cetera said no no no every year when the commonwealth came back when when they passed from the scene the commonwealth will be there to say and now we say yes for you and that that is a system that's being set up by this by this litigation which is fundamentally wrong or unfair  for ochs who are institutionalized should be put in the position where once their loved ones passed on the scene they're sort of at the mercy quote unquote of commonwealth actors who have financial interest in moving on that's i  don't presume to speak for them but that's kind of the tenor of the argument as i understand it and and i would like you to speak to that argument which is by the way this is set up at some point the commonwealth is going to get what it wants in its financial interest by default and no one will be there to stop this because of the way the class is arranged well first of all your honor i don't think it's necessarily soley a financial interest that motivates the commonwealth they are interested in motivated by providing appropriate services to the people they've been caring for institutional care they are based on scientific evidence of the understanding and belief that it is appropriate for to be available and and this is busy doses waiting lists a mile long it's really not meaning i'm not sure that's accurate your honor and even if it were the commonwealth is not about to dump people in the street while they're on a waiting list for a private  f i don't think that we can presume that but back your point i think that the commonwealth is being cast in this very cold harsh light that there is uncaring unwilling to take into account people's needs really don't understand these individuals they don't really get that they have serious problems and they don't really understand they couldn't possibly survive in the community that can't be true both of those things cannot be true the fact is that the come up through it professionals and again we have to get down to what almost ed and frederick l to says is that the commonwealth is entitled to rely on its professionals and make those determinations of whether a person is appropriate for services and also in the absence of anyone else speaking for the individual at the i c s there is no one else but the state to speak for them there's no state through its professionals are the most well placed persons to understand the wants and needs of the individual who they've cared for for years and the the fact that the family and guardian in the past has oppose that community services really doesn't necessarily speak to whether the individual him or herself actually oppose or not a does not oppose i think that you have to leave the decision making to the professionals which is and that will impair not only the classes ability those people do not opposed to gain the release they seek but in fact because of how instead is framed the individual players would also be likely foreclosed because they would be accused  so called queue jumping if they were to continue litigation on behalf of a few people that were on state said was that the that and that would be of violation of fundamental aeration of the state's programs if you allow some individuals because they brought litigation to jump ahead of everyone else who similarly situated and who wants to leave and his purpose for leaving you cannot do that on your own stat because that undermines the state function as a should to take into account all the other interests etc so how would how would allowing them to intervene resulting queue jumping because driver they would their main intent is to decertify the class a consequence that would be brought to the district court court would be then on in a position have to decide whether it should be certified and if it should do that then our clients are out of court at the plaintiffs classes out of court and certainly move the court under rule twenty one see i book twenty three c to decertify the class if the class is not cohesive and if it's not proper it shouldn't be a class action but that simply proves the point that we should be in this litigation one of the things that that is that is we're pretty says your honor we believe that we should be permitted to intervene in the classic in intervene in the litigation and move to decertify the class simply because the court has has issued summary judgment making factual findings about our ability to move to the community and we believe that that should not be a factual finding that applies to every single individual in the i c s m r that being said at the very least we have an interest in how the remedy is formed here that's going to apply to the class in part because we could become part of the class in the future so even assuming that we don't have an interest in the merits phase of this litigation we do absolutely have an interest has the responsibility to determine what the rights of people who want to have community relations are and to enforce those rights i would concede now you understand that the district court will oversee how the department will decide to comply with the judgment following the district court's decision on summary judgment agreed to go to mediation to determine amongst themselves what the appropriate remedy would be which they would obviously have to take to the court for approval but we certainly believe that having our voice a good they can get a remedy they have an answer that's that's that's correct but i would again encourage the remedy the remedy is in their judgment correct or out there and this record is going to say well wait a moment i'm going to see  the department is going to satisfy its obligations under the sergeant in a way that's not going to adversely affect anybody else is a different we're really going to go to  have a voice in how they are going to meet their obligations to the players we want to have a voice and if that's the decision in t in the board of directors meetings of the department was it going to matter whether you were interveners when the rights of the people who want to live in a community were decided the judgment was well your honor  because i want to i just want to emphasize that i believe that we have a right to intervene with respect to the merits of this decision but with respect to the remedy in particular i think that what we need to ensure is that the rights of everyone in the  being accounted for the remedy and that the remedy does not only that the remedy doesn't affect everyone's rights as opposed to only as you say that individuals who want to be moved in are qualified to be moved to the community so if you had  that in a subsequent proceeding that whatever whatever quarter tribunal's addresses would simply brush aside those facts so you're saying all of the proceedings so you're saying that even though as a matter of law they couldn't be preclude sort of sub rosa they'll end up being the particular location that we that we call home so that that presumes that courts won't take separate litigation for people who aren't precluded at face value and hearsay those facts without being affected by by what was said in a different lawsuit i think what it would presume is the pop attentional that the state if it decides it's in the state's interest move all residents out of a particular i c f m r could use this factual finding as a sword against us in subsequent proceedings they could and that could color the proceedings let me ask you this question procedurally if you if it is an appropriate class it will be there not in the question i assume will be cohesiveness whether or not it's appropriate to have a class where individual determinations about people's ability to reside in the community is i