Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 101
For example, in Raymond, et al. v. New York State Deptartment Of Corrections and
Community Supervision, 579 F. Supp. 3d, 327 (N.D.N.Y. 2022), the plaintiffs – two
inmates – filed a class action asserting that the defendants discriminated against them
in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. At issue
was the administration of the Shock Incarceration Program (SIP) and the
Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment program (CASAT). The plaintiffs asserted
that the SIP and the CASAT discriminated against disabled inmates. Id. at 333-34. The
SIP involved a “grueling program of exercise and manual labor in an atmosphere of
extreme regimentation and discipline,” along with drug treatment and education
programs where graduates were eligible for immediate release. Id. at 334. Some
inmates were not physically or mentally capable of completing the program and, in light
of that, such inmates ordered into the SIP would be transferred into the CASAT, which
did not have the same physical demands but included drug treatment. Id. The disparity
arose as non-disabled inmates could either be ordered into or opt into the SIP to be
eligible for early release, whereas those unable to complete the SIP had to be ordered
into it, and transferred into the CASAT to be eligible for early release. In other words,
disabled inmates could not opt into SIP for early release because they would be
excluded as unable to complete the program. The plaintiffs claimed that this system
infringed on the rights of disabled people. Id. at 335. The defendants did not dispute
numerosity, and the court determined that commonality was met because the question
of whether the defendant’s “refusal to create an avenue for inmates protected by the
ADA or Rehabilitation Act to volunteer for the opportunity to earn release eligibility in
six-months amounts to a denial of public benefits in violation of those statutes” would
resolve the class claims “in one stroke.” Id. at 337-38. Additionally, since the plaintiffs
were challenging the exclusion policy and not any individual’s exclusion from the SIP,
the court opined that typicality was met. Id. at 338. For these reasons, the court granted
the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
The court granted class certification in a novel case in 2022 in Neese, et al. v. Becerra,
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188379 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2022). The plaintiffs, a group of
healthcare professionals, filed a class action following an announcement that the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will "interpret and enforce" Section
1557 of the Affordable Care Act to prohibit: (1) "discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation"; and (2) "discrimination on the basis of gender identity.” Id. at *2. The
plaintiffs alleged that the announcement created an immediate, present-day injury on
them because they could lose federal money if they were to refuse to provide genderaffirming care to a transgender patient. Id. The plaintiffs asserted that this enforcement
wrongfully equated discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity
with "sex discrimination." Id. at *3. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of all healthcare providers subject to Section 1557 of the Affordable
Care Act. The court granted the motion. The court determined that since over 1 million
healthcare providers were at issue, the proposed class met the numerosity requirement.
The court found that the proposed class members all shared the same common injury
from the legal uncertainty over their obligations under Section 1557 and therefore met
both the commonality and typicality requirements. Id. at *13. As to adequacy, the court
determined that the plaintiffs would fairly and adequately represent the members of the
proposed class and noted that the fact that some putative class members may disagree
100
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
