DRM Cases in Active Litigation as of June 26, 2022

Susan Goodlaxson et al., v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-01454-BPG.

Summary:  Baltimore City’s curb ramps, sidewalks, and pedestrian rights-of-way are inaccessible to wheelchair users and others with mobility disabilities, making travel difficult and dangerous for thousands of people with disabilities who call Baltimore home or visit for work or pleasure. Three residents of Baltimore who use wheelchairs and the IMAGE Center, Baltimore’s Independent Living Center, represented by DRM and co-counsel, filed a class action alleging Baltimore City violates Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as it has not created or maintained accessible sidewalks and curb cuts throughout the City. The case seeks injunctive and declaratory relief.   

Filed:  U.S. District Court for Maryland (Northern Division), 6/10/2021.

Co-Counsel: Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Disability Rights Advocates.

Status:  Pending.

DRM v. Robert L. Green, Civil Action No. 8:21-cv-02959-ELH.

Summary:  DRM brought suit as an associational plaintiff on behalf of individuals with serious mental illness incarcerated in Maryland prisons who are unlawfully subject to segregation and discriminated against, in violation of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Filed:  U.S. District Court for Maryland (Northern Division), 11/18/2021.

Co-Counsel:  Venable LLC

Status:  Pending Motion to Dismiss

DRM v. PGCPS, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Civil Action No. 8:21-cv-03001-TJS.

Summary:  DRM brought suit as an organizational plaintiff to enforce its obligation to perform its statutory duty to protect the rights of youth with disabilities to be free from abuse, neglect and rights violations, and to protect its statutory right to access contact information for parents and guardians of students with disabilities in Prince George’s County Public Schools who have been subject to exclusionary discipline or suspensions of more than 3 days. DRM partners with Wiley Rein on this case as pro bono counsel.

Filed: U.S. District Court for Maryland (Southern Division), 11/23/21.

Co-Counsel: Wiley Rein LLP

Status:  Pending Motion for Summary Judgment

Rodney Coster v. Harford County Sheriff’s Office et al., Civil Action No. 21-cv-65.

Summary:  Mr. Coster, a person with a psychiatric disability, sued numerous Defendants for unlawfully and violently restraining and arresting him after he arrived at the Harford County Detention Center during a mental health crisis.  Mr. Coster was taken to the Sheriff’s office by his mother for assistance in getting psychiatric services. The lawsuit alleges the County failed to have adequate services in place to provide Mr. Coster with treatment, rather than enacting a violent and unnecessary arrest. Mr. Coster was Tased and seriously beaten. The case seeks damages for Mr. Coster; DRM seeks policies changes and staff training as well.

Filed: U.S. District Court for Maryland (Northern Division).

Co-Counsel: Mayer Brown, LLP and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs.

Status:  In Discovery. 

G. v. Maryland Department of Health, Civil Case No. 24C22000356.

Summary:  Mr. G is a person with co-occurring intellectual disabilities and mental illness who was committed to Spring Grove Hospital. While at Spring Grove, Mr. G did not receive appropriate supports for his developmental disability, despite being found fully eligible for DDA services. Mr. G was punched multiple times by a Maryland Department of Health police officer, sustaining injuries. DRM seeks damages and injunctive relief. 

Filed:  Baltimore City Circuit Court, 1/18/2022.

Co-Counsel:  None at this time.

Status:  Pending.

L. v. Montgomery County Board of Education of Montgomery County, Civil Action No. TDC-21-3263.

Summary:  D.L. is a 20-year-old student with Autism in Montgomery County Public Schools. DRM previously represented the client at a Due Process Hearing in summer 2021. An ALJ found that the district had failed to provide D.L. with a FAPE, but failed to order compensatory education. Our appeal seeks compensatory education for services MCPS failed to provide under D.L.’s IEP, and argues in the alternative that MCPS owed these services under a contract formed by a January 2020 settlement.

Filed: U.S. District Court for Maryland (Southern Division), filed 12/22/2021.

Co-Counsel:  None at this time.

Status:  Pending.

DRM Cases in Monitoring/Enforcement

Ricky Bailey, et al. v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City et al., Civil Action JFM 02-CV-225; US v. HABC, Civil Action JFM-04-CV-03107.

Summary:  Three individuals filed a class action alleging the Housing Authority of Baltimore City’s public housing program violated the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide accessible housing, including failure to provide accessible routes; denying equal access to housing by excluding people with disabilities from eligibility for housing; failing to provide reasonable accommodations and related claims.  The U.S. Department of Justice joined in court mediation and ultimately filed a separate complaint and joint consent decree after settlement negotiations.  The Consent Decree provides for damages through a victim’s fund, provides a modifications fund, requires over 800 units of accessible public housing and 500 voucher opportunities, including use of vouchers and project-based accessible housing, inclusionary housing as part of LIHTC developments, use of HOME funds, leasing assistance and financing to assist families move into accessible units, policy changes and training.  As public housing stock was demolished and RAD conversions were planned, modifications to the Consent Decree were necessitated to preserve client protections. 

Filed: 2002, U.S. District Court for Maryland (Northern Division).

Co-Counsel: Mintz Levin LLP (at filing); Hunton & Williams, LLP.

Status:  modified and currently still in monitoring phase.

Conciliation and Voluntary Compliance Agreement, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Three named individual Complainants, Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., Baltimore County Branch of the NAACP, and Baltimore County, Maryland.

Summary:  Complainants, including three individuals, Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., Baltimore County Branch of the NAACP, filed an administrative complaint and request for compliance review with HUD, alleging Baltimore County exhibited patterns and practices resulting in race and disability discrimination.  Specifically, Complainants alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act.  Extended negotiations resulted in monetary and non-economic relief for the individual Complainants and a twelve year Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) requiring Mobility Counseling and 2,000 moves into defined areas of opportunity for voucher families, creation of 1,000 affordable hard units in areas of opportunity including 100 accessible units and 500 units created for families needing three or more bedrooms, a three million dollar modification fund, a thirty million dollar fund for creating affordable housing, affirmative marketing plans, and changes to policies and practices, including source of income discrimination provisions. 

Filed: 2011 as a HUD Administrative Complaint.

Co-Counsel: Public Justice Center, Inc., Homeless Persons Representation Project, NAACP, ACLU-MD, and Maryland Legal Aid Bureau.

Status:  Settled in 2016.  Twelve-year monitoring period.

Patricia Ripley et al., v. Housing Authority of Prince George’s County et al., Civil Action No. TDC-16-2699.

Summary:  Case sought injunctive relief and monetary damages for injuries of ten named Plaintiffs who experienced housing discrimination based on their various disabilities (mobility, sensory, psychiatric).  Case alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act, Fair Housing Act Amendments, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.  DRM joined as an Associational Plaintiff for purposes of injunctive relief.  At issue are the Housing Authority’s failures to: provide accessible public housing; reasonable accommodations and effective communications; operate its housing choice voucher programs in a non-discriminatory manner and refrain from using discriminatory screening criteria.  Settlement relief included monetary damages, creation of modification fund for families using vouchers and needing accessibility features; creation of accessible units in public housing; creation of project-based vouchers in accessible housing in the private market; changed policies and practices.  No opposition to DRM as Associational Plaintiff.

Filed:  U.S. District Court for Maryland (Southern Division), filed 2016.

Co-Counsel: None.

Status: Settled 2018; three-year monitoring period.

Prior Litigation

The Arc of Maryland v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore et al., Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-00593-GLR, N.D. MD.

Summary: Case sought injunctive relief from six Maryland jurisdictions, charging they were discriminating against people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) by denying opportunities for them to access COVID-19 vaccines.  Information provided on the web sites of each named jurisdiction was incorrect and individuals eligible to register for the vaccine or to obtain a vaccine were being misinformed and excluded from access.  Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order in each case. All jurisdictions agreed to take expeditious actions to increase opportunities for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to access COVID-19 vaccines by correcting information on websites that omitted people with I/DD from among those listed as eligible for vaccination according to the state vaccination plan; providing a liaison for people with disabilities to contact for assistance and posting contact information for the liaison on their web sites; instructing staff as to the vaccine eligibility of people with I/DD; and adding people with I/DD to interest lists (registration) for the vaccine where such lists exist.  Many jurisdictions also began working with Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s attorneys to schedule vaccine clinics for persons with disabilities. 

Filed: 2021, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Northern Division.

Co-Counsel: The Arc of the United States and Brown and Barron, LLP.

Status:  Dismissed with settlements, 2021.

In re S.F., Court of Appeals of Maryland, September Term 2021, Petition No. 10.

Summary:  Amicus brief filed in Maryland Court of Appeals in support of an appeal from lower court decision that made ‘no school suspension’ a condition of probation in a juvenile matter.  Appeal taken by state office of the public defender.  Amicus brief authored by DRM and Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates on behalf of several organizations, including the Mental Health Association of Maryland, Maryland Developmental Disabilities Council, Maryland Center for Developmental Disabilities at Kennedy Krieger Institute, and National Disability Rights Network..  Amici argued that a no-suspension provision in probation orders are inequitable, unfairly target students with disabilities and students of color, will import demonstrable discriminatory actions of school system into juvenile justice system, is contrary to the rehabilitative purpose of probation, is vague and subjectively applied, and can result in restriction of liberty and removal from family based on disability related behaviors.

Filed: 2021

Co-Counsel: COPAA.

Status:  Although the Court issued a decision ruling against the position taken by student petitioner  and  amici, Judge Watts wrote a wonderful dissent and the amicus brief still provided an important opportunity to educate the Court on the disparate impacts that school discipline has on students with disabilities and students of color.

Gregory Johnson v. Maryland Department of Health, 470 Md. 648 (2020).

Summary:  Mr. Johnson, a patient committed to a state hospital for competency restoration, appealed an order from the Howard County Circuit Court ratifying the use of involuntary medication for purposes of restoring him to competency, despite no language in Maryland law authorizing such use. Appellant alleged violations of state and federal constitutional due process and violation of state law, particularly around the use of an administrative law process to authorize use of involuntary medications without notification to or participation by his criminal defense counsel.  The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the lower court.

Filed: 2019, Maryland Court of Special Appeals (cert taken on petition to the Maryland Court of Appeals).

Co-Counsel:  Brown, Goldstein & Levy

Status: Completed. 

Phillip Freeman et al. v. Rahn et al., Civil No. CCB-15-cv-149, N.D. MD.

Summary:  Four individual Plaintiffs and DRM as an associational Plaintiff filed a federal action for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging the state Department of Transportation and the Maryland Transit Administration were operating a paratransit system in violation of Title II of the ADA and Sec 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  Allegations involved the illegal use of eligibility criteria that screen out or deny service to eligible persons with disabilities and operating a telephone reservation system with capacity constraints including long telephone hold times. The case settled in 2017 with agreements to use an expert for six- month observations and reporting; a system for on-going communications between riders and MTA officials; purchase of a new telephone system; reporting and development of a quality assurance system; and a three year monitoring period.  Multiple system improvements were achieved over the four-year monitoring period.  P&A standing was not challenged. Federal court mediation was involved.

Filed: 2015, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Northern Division.

Co-Counsel: AARP Foundation Litigation.

Status: Settled 2017; three-year monitoring period.

Jane Doe v. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene et al., Civil No. WMN-14-3906, N.D.MD.

Summary:  Case sought injunctive relief and monetary damages for injuries suffered by Plaintiff from sexual assaults while in custody at a state psychiatric hospital and a residential center for persons with intellectual disability (ICF-ID).   Injunctive relief was sought to protect her from further future attacks and injuries.  Complaint was amended to name DRM as an associational Plaintiff to obtain broad systemic relief.  Plaintiff obtained $400,000 and non-economic damages (related to provision of community services and setting).  Systemic relief includes requirements for risk assessments, protection plans; process to obtain records from various settings or agencies when individuals are committed to custody; referral to external police (not facility police) for investigations of allegations of sexual abuse or related allegations; training; reporting; development of policies and regulations and more; five-year monitoring and reporting period.  Standing of DRM as associational Plaintiff was not challenged. Originally filed in state court, defendants removed to federal court.

Filed:  2014, Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Removed to U.S. District Court for Maryland by Defendants.

Co-Counsel:  Venable, LLP

Status:  Settled 2016, five-year monitoring period.

Gladys Hill et al., v Hampton Lester Morton Court et al., 13-1569, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, (2014) unpublished.

Summary:  DRM and Wiltshire and Grannis represented appellant contesting lower court decision granting summary judgment to Defendant and finding that Plaintiff’s request for home modifications in her federally subsidized apartment were barred by a three-year statute of limitations that ran when Defendants’ denied her request years earlier, thus subsequent requests amounted to a request to reconsider and were extensions of her original request, not triggering a new limitations period. The Court vacated the decision of the lower court agreeing with Appellant that the subsequent request and denial in 2010 was a discrete independent act of discrimination.  The Court did not accept Appellant’s other argument that the denials were continuing violations of the Rehabilitation Act.

Filed: 2012, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Northern Division.

Co-Counsel: Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP

Status:  Settled 2014.

Allmond v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 448 Md. 592 (Md. 2016).

Summary:  Mr. Allmond, a patient held involuntarily at a state hospital, challenged the state’s application of its involuntary medication statute as unconstitutional. The Court held that although the statute was not unconstitutional on its face, substantive due process requires that the statute be applied in conformity with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions requiring the government to show additional factors before approving involuntary medication. The authorization for involuntary medication may only be constitutionally carried out when there exists an “overriding justification,” such as a need to render a pretrial detainee competent for trial.

Filed: 2015, Circuit Court for Howard County.

Co-Counsel: Brown Goldstein & Levy

Status:  Decision by Maryland Court of Appeals, 2016.

Kelly v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Maryland Court of Appeals, 397 Md. 399, 918 A.2d 470 (2007).

Summary:  DHMH not authorized to forcibly medicate patient in absence of finding that patient is a danger to himself or others while in the facility.

Filed: 2005

Co-Counsel:  Public Justice Center, Inc.

Status:  2007 decision by the Maryland Court of Appeals.

McFadden v. Grasmick, 485 F.Supp.2d 642 (Md. 2007).

Summary:  Tatyana McFadden, a Howard County High School student, argued that Maryland State Department of Education discriminated against her in violation of Title II of the ADA because it failed to permit her to participate in state track championships in a meaningful way.  Preliminary injunction was denied, finding that court not persuaded it was discriminatory under the disability rights statutes for defendant to maintain a difference in the opportunity of wheelchair racers, in contrast to non-wheelchair racers, to earn points for teams, where all but a small number of teams are significantly under-represented in the distinct class of competitors of which McFadden is the sole member: wheelers.

Filed:  2007, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Northern Division.

Co-Counsel:  None

Status:  Court declined to issue the preliminary injunction.

McFadden v. Cousins, U.S. District Court for Maryland, AMD-06-cv-0648.

Summary:  Tatyana McFadden brought suit against Howard County Public Schools alleging violation of her rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, after she was not permitted to compete in track events with her nondisabled peers. Preliminary injunction was granted by the Court, enjoining Defendants’ from prohibiting Ms. McFadden’s participation in track events with her nondisabled peers.

Filed: 2006, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Northern Division.

Co-Counsel:  None

Status:  Settled 2006.

Smith et al. v. Flanagan et al., Civil Action No: L-03-CV-2895, N.D. MD.

Summary:  DRM and Brown, Goldstein and Levy filed a class action alleging the Department of Transportation and the Maryland Transit Administration were operating a paratransit system in violation of Title II of the ADA and Sec 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  The case challenged multiple operations of the paratransit system (telephone reservations, scheduling, on-time performance, missed trips etc.). Settlement obtained in 2005. Monitoring and motions for breach continued the action for seven years. The settlement agreement resulted in multi-million dollars of improvements in the system and the use of an expert provided reports and recommendations necessary to revamp the system.  The burden was placed on Defendants if they rejected implementation of an expert recommendations.  Negotiations with Class Representatives during the monitoring period were extensive. Expert reports are confidential.

Filed: 2003, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Northern Division.

Co-Counsel:  Brown Goldstein & Levy.

Status:  Settled 2005, seven-year monitoring period.

Williams v. Wasserman, 164 F.Supp.2d 591(Md. 2001).

Summary:  MDLC brought suit on behalf of residents with developmentally disabilities in state psychiatric institutions, alleging failure to provide residents with community treatment, rather than institutional care, in violation of due process clause and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On Summary Judgment, the Court held that (1) residents received medical treatment and were kept safe and reasonably free from bodily restraint in accordance with reasoned judgment of treating professionals, and (2) ADA did not require fundamental alteration of State’s programs. Plaintiffs’ motion denied and defendants’ motion granted.

Filed:  U.S. District Court for Maryland.


Status:  Summary Judgment for Defendants.

Washington Pediatric Center v. MDLC, 106 Md.App. 55 (Md. 1995).

Summary:  Maryland Disability Law Center (MDLC) sought injunction against private continuing care program for children with developmental disabilities requiring access to hospital records and staff, in order to investigate abuse or neglect. The Circuit Court, Baltimore City, Joseph H.H. Kaplan, J., entered injunction in favor of MDLC in part, and both parties appealed.

Filed:  U.S. District Court for Maryland, removed to Baltimore City Circuit Court.


Status:  The Court of Special Appeals, Fischer, J., held that: (1) MDLC’s authority to investigate reports of abuse and neglect extended to private hospitals; (2) state statutory definitions of abuse and neglect applied; (3) Circuit Court correctly set forth requirements for valid order in relation to acquisition of hospital records; (4) injunction was unduly restrictive in requiring MDLC to obtain Circuit Court finding of probable cause before permitting access to hospital records and staff; and (5) access to information with respect to nonclients of MDLC included those instances in which MDLC has probable cause or reports of abuse and neglect.

  1. Hattie J:

Summary:  Case brought on behalf of elderly persons with mental illness currently living in State psychiatric facilities, alleging that the state discriminated on the basis of age when determining what individuals should move to community placements.

Filed:  1994

Hunt v. Meszaros, Civil Action 2:91-cv-02564.

Summary:   On September 6, 1991, Mary Hunt, a resident of the Great Oaks Center for developmentally disabled persons in Silver Springs, Maryland, filed a class-action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the State of Maryland, the administrator of Great Oaks Center, and both the Secretary and Director of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The plaintiffs, including all persons then or who may in the future be confined at Great Oaks Center, were represented by counsel from the Maryland Disability Law Center, the Mental Health Law Project, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, in addition to private firms. They asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that they had been subjected to hazardous unconstitutional conditions while in state custody at Great Oaks Center. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that they had been subjected to injury, abuse, neglect, and unnecessary physical restraints, as well as having been denied medical care and rehabilitative training and services. Several plaintiffs complained of injuries sustained as a result of Great Oaks personnel’s failure to properly monitor the patients. Several residents died from lack of supervision as the center lacked treatment and training programs to deal with residents’ aggressive and self-abusive behavior.

The United States entered an amicus brief on May 17, 1996 in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and in opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

On March 25, 1999, after a stipulation of dismissal and approval signed by Judge Catherine C. Blake, the case was closed. A notice of appeal was filed on April 22, 1999 by the plaintiffs and on June 11, 2001, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.

Filed:  1991, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Southern Division.

Co-Counsel:  ACLU of Maryland, Bazelon Center

Status:  1999 Stipulation of Dismissal.

Williams v. Wilzack, 319 Md. 485 (Md. 1990).

Summary:  Mr. Williams, involuntarily committed to a state hospital, sued state officials to prevent forcible administration of antipsychotic medication.



Status:  The Court of Appeals held that statute providing for involuntary medication violated Mr. Williams’ procedural due process rights because it fails to provide patients with advance notice of the proceedings before the clinical review panel, the right to be present, to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, to have the assistance of an advisor who understands the psychiatric issues involved, and to obtain judicial review of an adverse panel decision before its implementation.

Lisa L. et al v. Sabatini.

Summary:  The case was filed on behalf of children committed to State custody who remained in psychiatric hospital placements beyond their clinically determined discharge dates.

Filed:  1987, U.S. District Court for Maryland.


Status:  Under the 1993 consent decree that resolved this case, the State was required to adopt regulations to facilitate timely and successful discharge of these children to appropriate placements. Case coordination functions grew out of the requirements of the Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) .01.04.03. 01-05.

Vaughn G. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al., Civil Case No. 84-1911, N.D. MD.

Summary:  Vaughn G. is special education systemic reform lawsuit filed by MDLC against the Baltimore City public schools (BCPSS) in May 1984 that was dismissed in 2013. The complaint alleged that BCPSS’ failed to meet the timelines mandated by the federal special education law for conducting and completing assessments; and failed to timely develop and implement individual education plans.   The case was not certified by the Court as a class action but the Consent Decree applies to all students with disabilities in Baltimore City who suffer violations addressed by the lawsuit. The litigation settled in 1988 with a consent decree.  This was the first in a long series of consent decrees, settlement agreements, and stipulations spanning over 20 years.  The Court appointed a Court Monitor; established a Management Oversight Team (MOT); ordered a compensatory education remedy; imposed fines and adopted Long Range Compliance Plan (LRCP) that identified over 41 areas of needed improvement to bring the school system into compliance with the Court Orders and IDEA. 

Filed:  1984, U.S. District Court for Maryland, Northern Division. 

Status: 1988 Consent Decree issued by the Court; Dismissed in 2013 after 20 years of court oversight and monitoring.

Knott vs. Hughes, Civil Action No. Y-80-2832.

Summary:  Class action on behalf of individuals with Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities in state psychiatric facilities, for appropriate provision of treatment and services. 

Filed:  1980, U.S. District Court for Maryland.

Also of Note

Disability Rights Maryland Complaint # 21-078, filed March 2021. 

DRM filed a State education administrative class action complaint on behalf of students in Maryland whose special education and related services have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and related school building closures and who may be entitled to compensatory education as a result. The Complaint was filed to protect and preserve claims students and families may have for compensatory education resulting from denial of a free appropriate public education that date back to the onset of the pandemic-related school building closures. Action needed because many families did not receive continuity of learning plans, amended individual education plans or other documents from their children’s school until well after buildings closed on March 16, 2020, and complaints must be filed no later than one year from the date of the violation. School districts have one year to correct violations, so the corrective actions are still underway, and we have been negotiating compensatory education for our individual clients.

Settlement Agreement between U.S. and Wicomico County Public Schools.

In 2012, DRM filed a DOJ complaint against the Wicomico County Public Schools (WCPS) regarding its overuse of school suspensions and school-based arrests. DRM represented students in WCPS and collaborated with DOJ during its investigation. In January 2017, DOJ and WCPS entered into a settlement agreement (with input from DRM) to address the concerns raised in our complaint, as well as in a complaint filed by the Office of the Public Defender.  DRM initiated or helped to facilitate listening sessions with the community, relief, and provided data and policy recommendations to DOJ. The settlement agreement includes: use of consultant to redress discipline practices that discriminate against Black and Latinx students and SW Disabilities.  Will develop management and behavioral supports to ensure proportionality of response to offense, reduce disparities in disciplinary consequences and use restorative practices.  note availability of RA in student code of conduct, adopting a positive school climate. revise student code of conduct to limit use of SRO or law enforcement to behaviors presenting an imminent and substantial risk of serious physical injury and that cannot be safely addressed by school staff, great detail on revisions to code of conduct. Wicomico County Public School District – Settlement Agreement | CRT | Department of Justice

Pre-filing negotiations on Complaint drafted and shared with Maryland Department of Health alleging state refusal to provide medically necessary cochlear implant to Medicaid beneficiary violated the federal Medicaid Act, Supremacy Clause, ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, resulted in Settlement Agreement in 2016.  Agreement provided for cochlear implant and related services.  Client represented by Sidley Austin, LLP and DRM.  Subsequent to this individual case, Sidley Austin and DRM engaged in extensive advocacy with the State resulting in promulgations of regulations providing for Medicaid coverage of multiple assistive hearing devices (hearing aids, cochlear implants, other devices) for adults.  Regulations and memorandum available.