Recent Court Cases
Open Cases
Summary: Three youth, through their next friends and lawyers from DRM, the ACLU of Maryland, Children’s Rights, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, filed a lawsuit against Maryland’s Department of Human Services (DHS) on behalf of a class of youth with disabilities in Maryland foster care who are prescribed psychotropic medications without sufficient oversight or informed consent. The goal is to ensure that DHS complies with state and federal law and addresses the harm caused to children and youth that can come from taking too many medications to address the same or similar symptoms.
Filed: January 17, 2023
Co-Counsel: Children’s Rights, ACLU-MD, and pro bono partner Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP
Status: In discovery
Summary: Three youth, through their next friends and lawyers from DRM, the ACLU of Maryland, Children’s Rights, and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, filed a lawsuit against Maryland’s Department of Human Services (DHS) on behalf of a class of youth with disabilities in Maryland foster care who are prescribed psychotropic medications without sufficient oversight or informed consent. The goal is to ensure that DHS complies with state and federal law and addresses the harm caused to children and youth that can come from taking too many medications to address the same or similar symptoms.
Filed: May 30, 2023
Co-Counsel: Venable, LLP.
Status: Currently in class certification briefing
Summary: DRM filed a lawsuit on behalf of individuals with serious mental illness incarcerated in Maryland prisons who are unlawfully housed in segregation (restrictive housing) and discriminated against, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, subjected to a substantial risk of harm from the failure to provide constitutionally adequate treatment, and denied constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment pursuant to the 8th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Filed: November 18, 2021.
Co-Counsel: White & Case, LLC.
Status: In discovery.
DRM v. Seshamani, et al.
Summary: DRM brought suit on behalf of individuals with mental illness and other disabilities who have been charged with a crime and found Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) and dangerous. These individuals are detained indefinitely in jails rather than transferred to a state facility for competency restoration, thereby violating their constitutional and civil rights. Maryland law requires the Department of Health (MDH) to transfer detainees found IST and dangerous within 10 business days of being notified of the Court’s Order. Detainees often receive little to no treatment and are sometimes held in solitary confinement under challenging conditions, thereby worsening their health. DRM’s goal is to ensure prompt access to treatment, the creation of community alternatives for low-level offenders, and an increase in community supports.
Filed: January 9, 2025
Co-Counsel: Wiley Rein, LLP and Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
Status: In discovery.
Summary: In 2016, DRM brought suit against the Housing Authority of Prince George’s County (HAPGC). The suit alleged that HAPGC failed to provide sufficient accessible housing, failed to make reasonable modifications and accommodations for qualified persons with disabilities, and engaged in housing discrimination. The parties reached a settlement in 2018 that included an agreement by HAPGC to make significant accessibility changes to its public housing sites, as well as taking steps to create new accessible units in project-based housing. The settlement also included terms providing for damages for plaintiffs, a modification fund, and changes to HAPGC policies and procedures. However, by 2023, as the Settlement Agreement was about to expire, HAPGC had not fulfilled its obligations under said agreement. DRM and pro bono partner Sidley Austin asked the Court for permission to file a motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. The Court asked DRM to try to work it out through mediation. The parties are still in mediation, and Plaintiffs have engaged an accessibility expert to identify areas where changes are still needed.
Filed: 2016.
Co-Counsel: Sidley Austin (enforcement only)
Status: In mediation
Cases in Monitoring/ Enforcement
Summary: In Baltimore City, many sidewalks, curb ramps, and walking paths are difficult or impossible to use for people in wheelchairs or with other mobility disabilities. This makes it unsafe and unduly burdensome for the thousands of people who live in or visit Baltimore. Three plaintiffs who use wheelchairs and the IMAGE Center (the Center for Independent Living for the Baltimore area) brought a class action lawsuit against Baltimore City with the help of DRM, Disability Rights Advocates, Fox & Robertson, and Dardarian, Ho, Kan & Lee (formerly Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho). The lawsuit claimed that Baltimore City was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to ensure that its sidewalks, curb ramps and walking paths are accessible to people with mobility disabilities.
In March of 2025 the Court approved an agreement called a Partial Consent Decree to resolve the lawsuit. This agreement requires Baltimore City to spend $8 to $12 million annually for four years to fix sidewalks, curb ramps, and walkways that don’t meet accessibility standards. After four years, the parties will meet to determine next steps to making and maintaining accessibility in Baltimore City.
Filed: June 10, 2021.
Co-Counsel: Fox & Robertson, P.C., Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Disability Rights Advocates.
Status: Partial Consent Decree (PCD) approved on March 27, 2025. In monitoring.
Summary: Three individual named plaintiffs, Baltimore Neighborhoods, Inc., and the Baltimore County Branch of the NAACP filed a complaint with HUD and a request for a compliance review of Baltimore County’s housing policy. The complaint alleged that Baltimore County was engaging in race and disability discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act. After five years of negotiation, Baltimore County agreed to a Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) that requires the county to assist 2,000 families in moving to areas of opportunity, to build 1,000 new affordable homes (including 100 accessible homes and 500 apartments with 3 or more bedrooms), and to start programs that assist families with finding housing in areas of opportunity. Additionally, Baltimore County created a $3 million modification fund to help make homes more accessible and a $30 million fund to build more affordable and accessible housing. The County also agreed to change policies, adopt new procedures, and pay damages to the individual plaintiffs. The VCA was signed in 2016 and will be in effect for 12 years.
Filed: 2011
Co-Counsel: Public Justice Center, Inc., Homeless Persons Representation Project (through early 2025), NAACP, ACLU-MD, and Maryland Legal Aid.
Status: DRM, along with other counsel for the Complainants, continues to meet with Baltimore County to detail their plans and share information on their progress meeting the requirements of the VCA.
Summary: Back in 2002, DRM and pro bono counsel brought suit against the Housing Authority of Baltimore City (HABC) on behalf of a class of people with disabilities who had been denied access to mixed population public housing, accessible housing, and also had been denied reasonable accommodations and modifications as required by the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the U.S. Housing Act.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Fair Housing and Civil Enforcement Division, which was investigating similar allegations against HABC, participated in settlement talks with HABC. These talks resulted in a joint Consent Decree. The Consent Decree required HABC to immediately open its mixed population buildings to non-elderly persons with disabilities, target 500 housing choice vouchers for non-elderly persons with disabilities, and to prioritize non-elderly persons with disabilities for one-bedroom family public housing units. The Consent Decree also required HABC to establish a victims’ fund, a modification fund, and to create nearly 800 UFAS-accessible units in public and subsidized housing. It further required HABC to create new policies, conduct staff training, and provide assistance for families trying to find better housing. As some public housing was torn down or changed to private management, the agreement was updated to protect people’s rights.
Filed: 2002
Co-Counsel: Mintz Levin LLP (at filing); Hunton & Williams, LLP (through 2004), U.S. Department of Justice, Fair Housing and Civil Enforcement Section.
Status: In monitoring.
