Source: http://openjurist.org/138/f3d/893
Timestamp: 2015-11-26 00:49:24
Document Index: 463221746

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 41', '§ 504', '§ 35', '§ 504', '§ 504', '§ 504']

138 F3d 893 Lc Zimring Ew v. Olmstead | OpenJurist
138 F. 3d 893 - Lc Zimring Ew v. Olmstead HomeFederal Reporter, Third Series138 F.3d
138 F3d 893 Lc Zimring Ew v. Olmstead 138 F.3d 893
8 A.D. Cases 1485, 12 NDLR P 192, 11Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1188
L.C., by Jonathan ZIMRING as guardian ad litem and nextfriend; E.W., Plaintiffs-Appellees,v.Tommy OLMSTEAD, Commissioner of the Department of HumanResources; Richard Fields, Superintendent of GeorgiaRegional Hospital at Atlanta; Earnestine Pittman, ExecutiveDirector of the Fulton County Regional Board, all in theirofficial capacities, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 97-8538.
After review, we are unable to credit the State's argument that the ADA does not bar a state from providing public services for individuals with disabilities in a segregated manner because every indication of congressional intent confirms that the ADA applies to the circumstances presented here. As noted earlier, in passing the ADA, Congress mandated that the Attorney General promulgate regulations consistent with the coordination regulations issued pursuant to § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Congress' decision to incorporate the § 504 coordination regulations is particularly significant here. The Attorney General's § 504 coordination regulations mandate that recipients of federal financial assistance "administer programs and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified handicapped persons." 28 C.F.R. § 41.51(d) (1997) (emphasis added). By requiring the Attorney General to follow the § 504 coordination regulations--including the explicit integration requirement--Congress expressly mandated that individuals with disabilities receive public services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. Conforming to this mandate, § 35.130(d) tracks this very language.5
It is well-settled that where "a Congress that re-enacts a statute voices its approval of an administrative ... interpretation thereof, Congress is treated as having adopted that interpretation, and this Court is bound thereby." United States v. Board of Comm'rs of Sheffield, Ala., 435 U.S. 110, 134, 98 S.Ct. 965, 980, 55 L.Ed.2d 148 (1978); Don E. Williams Co. v. Commissioner, 429 U.S. 569, 576-77, 97 S.Ct. 850, 855-56, 51 L.Ed.2d 48 (1977). Although Title II of the ADA did not re-enact § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the plain language of the ADA makes clear that Congress ratified the Attorney General's § 504 coordination regulations and sought to ensure that the Attorney General's Title II regulations tracked the § 504 coordination regulations. Under these circumstances, both sets of regulations, including the integration provisions, have the force of law. Helen L., 46 F.3d at 332; Messier v. Southbury Training Sch., 916 F.Supp. 133, 141 (D.Conn.1996).
Congress' determination that public services be provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of individuals with disabilities is likewise reflected in the ADA's congressional findings and the Act's legislative history. The Act's findings and legislative history make clear that Congress sought