McCullough v. California Department of Developmental Services
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-02958
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
McCullough v. California Department of Developmental Services: Judge Illston denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiffs’ disability-discrimination claims to continue.
The plaintiffs’ disability-discrimination case against the California Department of Developmental Services and Nancy Bargmann remains pending because the court denied the motion to dismiss.
What happened
In McCullough v. California Department of Developmental Services, the California Department of Developmental Services and Nancy Bargmann asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. They argued that the plaintiffs had not shown the required connection between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct or that the court could remedy those injuries.
The defendants also argued that the alleged harm resulted from third parties and the Department’s failure to adopt policies, rather than from direct discrimination by the Department. The court disagreed, pointing to California laws requiring the Department to oversee regional centers, ensure compliance with federal and state law, and take action when violations occur. The court also found the cases cited by defendants distinguishable from the allegations here, which concerned communication and equal access for deaf plaintiffs.
The court denied the motion to dismiss in its entirety. Judge Susan Illston therefore allowed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint to remain pending, without deciding the ultimate merits of their claims.
The detailed version
- McCullough v. California Department of Developmental Services · No. 3:20-cv-02958
- Susan Illston
- Oct. 2, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint against the California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and Nancy Bargmann. The defendants moved to dismiss that complaint. The court held oral argument on September 18, 2020.
Arguments
The defendants argued that the complaint did not establish standing, which is the requirement that plaintiffs show a legally sufficient injury connected to the defendants’ conduct and capable of being remedied by the court. More specifically, they challenged traceability and redressability. They also argued that the complaint failed as a matter of law because the alleged harm was based on third-party actions and DDS’s lack of policies, rather than on direct actions by DDS that discriminated against the plaintiffs because of their disabilities.
Court’s reasoning
The court disagreed. It cited California statutes assigning DDS responsibility for ensuring that regional centers comply with federal and state law and regulations, including by taking necessary steps to secure compliance. The statutes also authorize DDS to provide services and supports directly when there are identified gaps and require the Department to take appropriate steps when a regional center violates, or appears likely to violate, the Lanterman Act or related regulations. The director of DDS may also issue directives to regional centers to protect consumer rights, health, safety, or welfare.
The court found the defendants’ reliance on ARC v. Department of Developmental Services and Bouslog v. Care Options Management Plans & Supportive Services, LLC misplaced. It distinguished ARC because that case involved spending directives that reduced services by category and did not address Title II or Section 504. It distinguished Bouslog because that case involved one disabled woman who was abused and neglected by a caretaker, and the court there found that DDS had not discriminated against her because of her disability. Here, the plaintiffs alleged that DDS’s failure to ensure effective communication and equal access to program benefits resulted in discrimination based on deafness.
Disposition
The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety. Judge Susan Illston did not decide the ultimate merits of the plaintiffs’ claims in this order; she ruled that the First Amended Complaint would not be dismissed at this stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.