Messier v. Southbury Training School (1996)

Helen L., 46 F.3d at 332 ; Messier v. Southbury Training School, 916 F. Supp. 133, 141 (D.

Helen L., 46 F.3d at 332 ; Messier v. Southbury Training Sch., 916 F.Supp. 133, 141 (D.Conn.1996).

BACKGROUND A. CRIPA The CRIPA authorizes the United States to seek injunctive relief against any state, political subdivision of a state, or official, employee, or agent thereof, whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that such party is subjecting institutionalized persons to “grievous harm” caused by “egregious or flagrant conditions which deprive [them] of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the U…

However, “the fairest reading of Section 1320a-2 [and 1320a-10] is that Congress was concerned ... that a court should not eviscerate an otherwise enforceable right merely because it appears in a statute mandating that participating states include a particular provision in their state plans.” Messier v. Southbury Training School, 916 F.Supp. 133, 144-45 (D.Conn.1996); see also Harris v. *1121 James, 127 F.3d 993, 1002-03 (11th Cir.1997).

Messier v. Southbury Training School, et al., 916 F.Supp. 133, 141 (D.Conn.1996); see also Cable, M.D. v. Dep’t of Developmental Services of the State of California, 973 F.Supp. 937, 942 (C.D.Cal.1997) (citing Messier and concluding that interpreting 28 C.F.R. § 130 (b)(1)(iv) as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the severity of a person’s disability is an accurate interpretation of the ADA); Helen L. v. DiDario, 46 F.3d 325, 336 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 81…

At least one court has interpreted the above to “prohibit discrimination on the basis of the severity of a person’s disability.” See, e.g., Messier v. Southbury Training School, 916 F.Supp. 133, 141 (D.Conn.1996).

See Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347 , 112 S.Ct. 1360 , 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992) (holding that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 does not create a federally enforceable right under § 1983 because the language of the Act could be read “to impose only a rather generalized duty on the State, to be enforced not by private individuals, but by the Secretary____”); Messier v. Southbury Training School, 916 F.Supp. 133, 142-46 (D.Conn.1996) (discussing precedent in t…

Wagner by Wagner v. Fair Acres Geriatric Ctr., 49 F.3d 1002 , 1016 n. 15 (3d Cir.1995) (“While section 504 does not apply to programs choosing among similarly handicapped people, an action under section 504 exists if a program is found to discriminate between distinct classes of handicapped persons.”); Plummer v. Branstad, 731 F.2d 574, 578 (8th Cir.1984); Messier v. Southbury Training Sch., 916 F.Supp. 133, 141 (D.Conn.1996) (collecting cases); McGuire v. Switzer, 734 F.Sup…