*New since last report

Children's Rights

Price v. Department of Child Services (Marion Superior Court, Indiana Court of Appeals) (filed 7/15)

This is a class action case brought by a case manager for the Department of Child Services alleging that the Department has allowed caseloads to rise far in excess of mandatory state standards. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss and the matter is being appealed. The case was argued in the Indiana Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, reversing the trial court and sending the case back for a trial. The matter is pending.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose 

 

Due Process and Fair Hearing Rights

Rebirth Christian Academy Daycare, Inc. v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 07/12, our appearance 10/12]

The plaintiff in this case was registered as an unlicensed child care ministry in order to provide child care services under Indiana law. This registration was terminated by the State, although the plaintiff was never afforded an opportunity to have a hearing or to contest the factual allegations made by the State. The original complaint was filed by a private attorney, and we filed an amended complaint alleging that this violates due process and seeking both an injunction and damages. A motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. We received partial summary judgment and we are appealing the issue we lost. The Seventh Circuit recently entered a decision in our favor, reversing the district court's grant of qualified immunity and remanding the case for trial.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose

United States v. Bowser (U.S. Dist. Ct., So. Dist. of Indiana, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)[our appearance 6/15]

This is a high profile criminal case against several members of the Outlaws Motorcycle Club. After several defendants pled guilty, the United States initiated civil forfeiture proceedings against, among other things, all items at several addresses containing the insignia of the Outlaws. However, these items are not owned by the criminal defendants but by the collective membership of the Outlaws. Nonetheless, the United States did not give notice to the Outlaws before the items were forfeited. We represent Bradley Carlson, who is recognized by the Outlaws as responsible for maintaining these items. He filed pro se a motion to have the district court set aside the orders of forfeiture, which was denied. We have appeared in order to represent him in an appeal of that order, which is proceeding to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit has recently entered a decision against us and we sought rehearing en banc, which was also denied. The matter will be closed.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose 

Election Issues

Valenti v. Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 8/15)

The new law that prevents certain sex offenders from entering schools prevents them from voting in-person if their voting place is in a school. Although the absentee ballot voting law has been amended to allow these persons to vote absentee, absentee voting is not a substitute for in-person voting. This case alleges an infringement on the right to vote. A motion to dismiss by the State has been denied and the case is proceeding.

ATTORNEY(S) Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

Freedom of Speech and Association

*Bare v. City of Martinsville (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (filed 10/16)

This is a challenge to the policy and practice of the City of removing certain posts from its Facebook site and barring certain persons from posting, all of which allegedly violates the First Amendment.

ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

Brady v. Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Nursing (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 2/16]

Ms. Brady is a registered nurse who was discharged from a teaching position at a private Indiana school because she responded to a student's question about Indiana's RFRA. When she reported the discharge on her license renewal she was ordered to attend additional training and education by the State Board of Nursing and her license now has a less than full and unrestricted status. The case alleges that this violated the First Amendment and also argues that the Board failed in its mandatory duty to provide Ms. Brady with a written decision.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

East Chicago Housing Authority v. Clifford Ramer (Lake County Superior Court) [answer/counter-claim filed 8/2016]

Our client in this case is a resident in a public housing development in East Chicago and the vice president of his building's tenant organization. The housing authority served him with a notice of eviction after he spoke out about the deteriorating conditions in his building, which was recently condemned by the City of East Chicago. The ACLU is defending the plaintiff in his eviction proceedings and is pursuing a counterclaim for violations to his First Amendment right to free speech, seeking an injunction and damages.

ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk 

Gohmann Asphalt and Construction v. Cornetta (Clark Superior Court) [Filed 7/08]

An employer involved in the construction of the I-69 Project is seeking a workplace violence restraining order against a group of environmental protesters. We represent them in an effort to support their 1st Amendment rights. We have filed for summary judgment and it was denied and interlocutory appeal was denied.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose

*Harnishfeger v. United States of America (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 11/16]

A former phone-sex operator wrote a short book about her experiences in that job in order to make sure persons were apprised of the predatory nature of some men. She subsequently obtained a position as an AmeriCorps VISTA volunteer placed with the Indiana National Guard (as a civilian). When her superiors at the Indiana National Guard discovered her authorship of the book, she was first removed from her placement with the Indiana National Guard and then terminated from participation in the VISTA program. We filed a lawsuit on First Amendment grounds against both the state and federal officials responsible for these decisions. The case is pending.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose; Jan Mensz

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose; Jan Mensz

Higher Society of Indiana, Inc. v. Tippecanoe County, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct – No. Dist. of Indiana)

This case challenges the failure of the County to allow the plaintiff group to have a rally on the grounds of the Tippecanoe County Courthouse. A preliminary injunction hearing is set for late August. A preliminary injunction hearing has been held and we are awaiting a decision.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz

ICLU v. Secretary of State (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) (Filed 8/15)

This case challenges the new Indiana law the prohibits people taking photos or other digital images of their ballots. The challenge is based on the First Amendment. The district court entered a preliminary injunction against the law. The State did not appeal the grant of a preliminary injunction and the parties are proceeding to file motions for summary judgment. A decision is pending.

ATTORNEYS: Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz

St. John Homeowners PAC v. Town of St. John (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist.) [Filed 2/16]

Plaintiff is a group that is politically active in St. John. It produced signs to be posted along with other political signs at election time and the Town Manager removed the signs and threatened individuals associated with the PAC with ordinance violations if there were future postings. The suit alleges violations of the First Amendment and seeks damages and injunctive relief.

ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

*Shaw v. City of Bedford (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist) [filed 10/16]

This case challenges the constitutionality of Bedford's ordinances regulating residential signs. The matter is pending.

ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

Van Hook v. King (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [filed 8/15]

The plaintiff was employed doing database maintenance at the Indiana Department of Child Services. She was terminated because of an internet posting that she made, concerning a matter of public interest, using her personal computer from home. The case asserts that this violates the First Amendment. A favorable settlement has been negotiated, and the matter will be closed.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk., Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz

Willis v. Commissioner – (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [Filed 08/16]

The plaintiff is an inmate and a subscriber to the San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper. After a different inmate wrote an op-ed concerning "why black lives matter behind bars" that was published in the newspaper, the plaintiff was informed that he could no longer receive copies of the newspaper while incarcerated. We have challenged this action as violative of the First Amendment. A preliminary injunction has been sought. (The plaintiff is a different "Mr. Willis" than in the long-standing case concerning kosher meals in prison.)

ATTORNEY(S) Gavin M. Rose; Jan P. Mensz

*Wolf v. City of Elkhart (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist.) [filed 10/16]

This is a challenge to the City's policy of removing messages from its Facebook page and barring persons from posting, all of which allegedly violates the First Amendment.

ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

 

Miscellaneous

Exodus Refugee Immigration v. Pence (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 11/15]

This case challenges the Governor's "suspension" of the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana. The district court granted our request for a preliminary injunction and the State is appealing. The case was argued in the Seventh Circuit in September and the Court ruled in plaintiff's favor and the matter has been remanded back to the district court.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, attorneys from the National ACLU – Judy Rabinovitz, Cecillia Wang, Omar Jadwat

*Hope v. Indiana Department of Correction (Marion Superior Court) [Filed 10/16]

In a 2009 case the Indiana Supreme Court held that requiring an individual to register as a sex offender when the person committed his or her offense prior to the time the law had imposed the registration obligation violated the Indiana Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto punishments. Nonetheless, the Indiana Supreme Court holds that it does not violate the state constitutions to require persons to register if they were previously required to register in another jurisdiction. Two of the three plaintiffs were convicted in Michigan and then moved here; and the third was convicted in Indiana, moved to Texas for a period of time, and then returned. If any of them had been convicted in Indiana and never left the state, they would not be required to register. The case alleges that requiring them to register due to their travel between states violates the due process right to interstate travel and equal protection. It also alleges that requiring them to register violates the federal constitution's ex post facto clause. A preliminary injunction has been sought.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose; Jan P. Mensz

Valenti v. Hartford City, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 3/15]

Hartford City has in place an ordinance that prohibits persons who are required to register because of sex offenses against children from going into Child Safety Zones (school, parks, athletic areas, etc.) and also prohibits them from "loitering" within 300 feet of these areas. This is a class action challenge, with an individual request for damages. Hartford City has amended the ordinance and has attempted to define "loitering." However, we believe that the ordinance remains unconstitutional and the case is pending on cross-motions for summary judgment.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Prisoners' Rights

Fugate v. Martin, et al. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. ) (Rec'd appointment 5/16)

At the request of the District Court we have accepted appointment to represent the plaintiff in this case who has numerous complaints concerning medical treatment issues.

ATTORNEYS(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

Hos v. Vigo County Sheriff (Vigo Superior Court) [Filed 8/13]

As part of a settlement entered into in 2002 the Vigo County Sheriff and Commissioner agreed to a population cap of 268 on the Vigo County Jail and agreed that prisoners should be allowed recreation 3 times a week. The population has greatly exceeded that amount and prisoners are not getting the requisite amount of recreation. This is a breach of contract action filed in state court to require the defendants to comply with the contract.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission v. Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana)

This case challenges the continued confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners by the Department of Correction in segregated or extremely isolated prison environments. The case is brought on behalf of Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services which is charged by federal law for advocating on behalf of the mentally ill. We have added prisoners and class has been certified and we are moving forward. The case was tried in July of 2011 and the trial court recently ruled in plaintiffs' favor, finding that the treatment of these seriously mentally ill prisoners violates the 8th amendment. A final settlement has been negotiated and has been allowed to go into effect. The case remains open for monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin Rose, attorneys from Indiana Protection
and Advocacy Services

Lindh v. Warden (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [filed 5/14] (not listed previously)

This is a challenge to the practice in the Communications Management Unit at the federal prison in Terre Haute of subjecting all prisoners to cavity searches before they have a non-attorney visit, even though the visits are all non-contact and are conducted through plexiglass. The parties are filing cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court recently entered a decision in our favor. The federal government has not appealed the decision.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose

Richardson v. Monroe County Sheriff (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/08]

This is a case challenging the conditions at the Monroe County Jail. A motion to dismiss has been filed by the defendants and was denied. The case has been settled and is open for monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

*Simons v. Hinshaw (U.S. Dist. Ct.—So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 10/16]

This is a case challenging the refusal of a chaplain at the Correctional Industrial Facility to permit the plaintiff to marry her inmate-fiancé. After the case was filed, the DOC approved the marriage, and our claim for damages is proceeding.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Religious Freedoms and Establishment Clause

Bellar v. River Forest Community School Corporation (U.S. Dist. Ct.—No. Dist. of Indiana) (Filed 6/2015)

The plaintiffs are a high school student and his parents, who have filed suit to challenge three separate religious practices of the school corporation: the practice of requiring student athletes to participate in coach-led prayers prior to athletic events; the practice of conducting prayers (led by the president of the school board) at or near the beginning of each monthly public meeting of the school board; and the practice of having prayers sponsored by the school corporation at high school graduation ceremonies. The case has been settled.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Doe v. Boone County Prosecutor (Boone Superior Court) [Filed 5/16]

Indiana's "serious sex offender" law prohibits sex offenders from entering school property. The Boone County Prosecutor and Sheriff have interpreted the law to prohibit these persons from attending church if there is any children's programming on the premises. This interpretation is both erroneous and violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court has ruled against plaintiffs and in favor of the statute and a motion to correct errors has been filed asking the trial court to reverse its decision.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz

Freedom from Religion Foundation v. Concord Community Schools (U.S. Dist. Ct. – N. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 10/15]

Each year, Concord High School stages several performances of a "Christmas Spectacular," which includes many songs celebrating the holiday season performed by various classes and groups from the school's performing arts department. The event then concludes with a 20-minute live nativity scene and scriptural reading telling the story of the birth of Jesus Christ. We represent an organization, a student enrolled at the school, and the father of that student in challenging this portion of the Christmas Spectacular as violating the Establishment Clause. . A preliminary injunction was granted, although partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants based on a revised program. Final judgment has not yet issued.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose; Sam Grover and Ryan Payne (Freedom From Religion Foundation); Heather Weaver and Dan Mach (ACLU-National)

Glenn v. Liebel (Marion Superior Court ) [Filed 7/16]

We previously represented the plaintiff, a prisoner, in a federal case that resulted in a private settlement agreement allowing him and other Eastern Orthodox adherents at Wabash Valley Correctional Facility to meet for worship and study. The case alleges that defendants have breached that agreement and seek its enforcement.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

*Jones v. Commissioner, DOC (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of In.)[filed 10/16]

This case, brought by a Muslim prisoner, challenges the failure of the DOC to provide a halal diet with halal meat. The matter is pending.

ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz

Kemp v. Commissioner (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) (Filed 10/14]

This is an action by two Jewish prisoners who were at a facility that provided both a kosher diet and services. The DOC decided to construct what it characterizes as kosher kitchens at 4 institutions. The prisoners were transferred to one of the institutions so that they could continue their kosher diets. However, the DOC has not allowed any of the Jewish prisoners to meet for worship or study at the new institution. After services were finally initiated the case was fully briefed on the question of damages. A decision is pending.

Miller v. Delaware Community School Corp. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [Filed 6/16]

This case challenges the practice of the defendant school corporation of allowing Bibles to be distributed to graduating seniors at a senior luncheon and also the practice of having a prayer during graduation. The matter has been settled after the school changed its policy. The case will be closed.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz

Pyle v. Hamilton (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [Filed 4/16]

This is a case that seeks damages because of a traffic stop by a State Trooper where, after the conclusion of the stop, he engaged in proselytizing. The matter has been settled and will be closed.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk. Jan P. Mensz

Thomas v. Boone County Sheriff – (US Dist. Ct. – So. Dist) [Filed 8/16]

The plaintiff is a Muslim prisoner who complains of not receiving a Halal diet. The Sheriff agreed to provide a Halal diet. The case has been dismissed and will be closed.

*Woodring v. Commissioner, DOC (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist.) [Filed 10/16]

The plaintiff is a Jewish prisoner who does not currently receive a kosher diet. His lawsuit claims that his rights are being violated because he is not provided with kosher meals during the 8 day Passover holiday.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk. Jan P. Mensz

Reproductive Rights

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 4/16]

This case challenges various aspects of HEA 1337, including the prohibition on obtaining abortions for certain reasons and the requirement that women seeking abortion services be informed of these prohibitions as part of Indiana's so-called "informed consent" process. The district court granted a preliminary injunction on June 30. The State is not appealing the grant of the preliminary injunction and the case is proceeding to summary judgment.

ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, Jennifer Dalven (National ACLU), Helene Krasnoff (National Planned Parenthood)

Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. v. Commissioner, Indiana State Department of Health (U.S. Dist. Ct – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 7/16]

This case challenges another provision of HEA 1337 that requires that ultrasound examinations be performed at least 18 hours before the abortion, as opposed to prior law that allowed the examinations to occur at the time of the abortion. This will negatively impact the ability of women to obtain abortions and in light of recent Supreme Court precedent is an unconstitutional undue burden. A preliminary injunction hearing was held on November 9 and a decision is pending.

ATTORNEY(S); Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose, Jan P. Mensz, Jennifer Dalven (National ACLU), Jennifer Sandman (National Planned Parenthood)

Rights of those with Disabilities and Medicaid

* Ashby v. Warrick County School Corp. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [filed 9/16]

Mycal Ashby is a person with a physical disability and is confined to a wheelchair. Her child was in the school choir that conducted its Christmas program at a site that was not accessible. She has sued for damages claiming that his violates federal laws prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of disability status. The matter is pending.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Jan P. Mensz

Blade v. City of Richmond (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 7/04]

This case challenges the lack of accessible sidewalks in Richmond, Indiana. A settlement has been reached and has been approved by the Court. It is open for monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Cantrell v. Town of Liberty (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 2/02]

This is a challenge under the ADA to the fact that the Town of Liberty does not have accessible sidewalks. The case has been settled in plaintiff's favor. It remains open for monitoring as the sidewalks are made accessible.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Caylor v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Fayette Superior Court) [Filed 10/12]

The plaintiff is a serious disabled adult who requires constant care and supervision, and receives services through the Medicaid waiver program to receive this care and supervision. As a result of new service limitations that are being imposed on waiver recipients, the plaintiff's services have been dramatically reduced. The lawsuit alleges that this violates the ADA, as well as state and federal Medicaid law. This case presents the same issue as the Smith case and the Chickadaunce case below. The case has been stayed pending a resolution to the Chickadaunce case.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose, Nicole Goodson (private attorney)

Chickadaunce v. Minott (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/13]

The plaintiffs are three individuals who are enrolled in a home-and-community-based Medicaid waiver program in Indiana. They have been assigned by the State to a category of individuals that require 24/7, or almost 24/7 care. However, the State has promulgated limits on services that are far lower than this level of care. The lawsuit challenges these service limits as violative of the Medicaid Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff class has been certified, and the matter is pending. This case presents the same issue as presented by the Smith and Caylor cases. The case has now been stayed as the agency contemplates making changes to its waiver program.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin Rose

Culvahouse v. City of Laporte (U.S. Dist. Ct. — Northern Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 5/06]

This is a class action challenge to the failure of LaPorte to have sidewalks that are accessible to disabled persons as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both sides have sought summary judgment. The trial court has entered partial summary judgment in plaintiffs' favor. The parties have entered into a settlement of all remaining issues and the case is open for monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Jackson v. Secretary of the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration(U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 11/15]

This is a putative class action that challenges the failure of the Indiana Medicaid program to provide recipients with Harvoni, the new drug that cures Hepatitis C unless and until they reach the later stages of the disease. The case is pending.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose. Fran Quigley (IU McKinney School of Law)

Meeker v. Kosciusko Community Fair, Inc. (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 9/14] (mistakenly not listed previously)

The client, who is a person with disabilities, challenges the lack of accessibility of the Kosckiusko County Community Fair fairgrounds. A settlement has been filed and has been approved. The case remains open for monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Neal v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. –So District of Ind.) [filed 9/15)

Plaintiff is a prisoner with a disability that prevents him from walking any distance. He is being denied a wheelchair, which, in turn, prevents him from accessing various program available to prisoners. The case alleges that this violates the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.Cross-motions for summary judgment have been denied and the case is set for trial.

ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

*New Horizons Rehabilitation, Inc. v. City of Lawrenceburg(U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 9/16]

New Horizons, an organization serving those with intellectual and developmental disabilities, has been attempting to open a supported living home for three adults in Lawrenceburg for a number of years. It has been thwarted by Lawrenceburg imposing requirements that are not imposed on other single-family homes. The case alleges this violates various federal laws, Indiana law, and equal protection. A preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for January of 2017.

Sipe v. Indiana Department of Correction (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/ 15]

This case challenges the fact that the plaintiff, a wheelchair bound prisoner with a disability, was placed into segregation by the DOC because there were accessible cells there, even though there were accessible areas elsewhere in the institution. Because he was still classified as general population - even though in segregation- he was forced to leave the segregation unit for recreation and other matters. Each time he did he had to struggle out of his wheelchair so he could be strip searched – both at leaving and returning. Damages and injunctive relief are sought. The matter has been settled and will be closed.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk

Smith v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (Monroe Circuit Court) [Filed 10/12]

The plaintiff is a serious disabled adult who requires constant care and supervision, and receives services through the Medicaid waiver program to receive this care and supervision. As a result of new service limitations that are being imposed on waiver recipients, the plaintiff's services have been dramatically reduced. The lawsuit alleges that this violates the ADA, as well as state and federal Medicaid law. A motion for preliminary injunction has been filed. This case presents the same issue as the Caylor case and the Chickadaunce case above. The case has been stayed pending a resolution to the Chickadaunce case.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Steimel v. Minott (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/13]

This is a class action challenge to recent actions by the State of Indiana eliminating the waiting list for a Medicaid waiver program and determining that persons with developmental disabilities who do not required skilled nursing services may not receive services through a particular waiver designed to allow the aged and disabled to receive services in the community as opposed to nursing homes. The case alleges that these actions violate the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, in addition to the Medicaid Act. The trial court has denied plaintiffs' request for class certification and the matter is continuing with individual plaintiffs. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and we have appealed both that order and the denial of class certification. The Seventh Circuit reversed judgment for the defendants and remanded the case back to the district court after issuing a favorable decision, although denial of the class action was affirmed.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Beckem v. FSSA (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 4/14]

I realize that this case is out of alphabetical order. However, it is a damages case by persons who would have been class members in the Steimel case immediately above. The plaintiffs in this case, who lost services when they were removed from the aged and disabled waiver, seek damages because of the violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. One of the plaintiffs, like the plaintiff in Steimel, also seeks injunctive relief to get back on the waiver. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and we have appealed that order. The Seventh Circuit reversed judgment for the defendants and remanded the case back to the district court after issuing a favorable decision.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose

Targett v. City of Brazil (U.S. Dist. Ct. — So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 8/00]

This case challenges the failure of the City of Brazil to maintain accessible sidewalks in violation of the ADA. Discovery is being done. A settlement was approved. Contempt was filed since it is alleged the City has not complied with the settlement. We entered a new settlement which the City did not comply with and we again sought contempt. The matter was resolved and we are monitoring.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk 

Search and Seizure Issues

Gutierrez v. City of East Chicago (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 3/16]

This is a challenge to the policy of the Housing Authority of East Chicago of conducting warrantless searches and inspections of tenants' apartments without cause or consent, including some searches that are clearly for criminal investigatory purposes. A preliminary injunction was issued in plaintiffs' favor and the case is proceeding.

ATTORNEY(S): Jan P. Mensz, Kenneth J. Falk

*Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion County Sheriff's Department (U.S. Dist. Ct. – No. Dist. of Ind.) [Filed 9/16]

The plaintiff appeared in court for a traffic citation when he was informed by a sheriff's deputy that federal immigration officials (ICE) had been looking for him earlier in the day. He was therefore held at the Marion County Jail overnight at which point he was transferred into ICE custody. The case alleges that he was unconstitutionally arrested.

ATTORNEY(S): Gavin M. Rose; Jan P. Mensz

Neale v. Black Township, Posey County, Indiana (U.S. Dist. Ct. – So. Dist. of Indiana) [Filed 6/15]

This case challenges the requirement imposed by the Black Township Trustee that all applicants for township assistance must take and pass a drug test. The Trustee has agreed to suspend its policy while the case is resolved. A settlement has been reached and is awaiting judicial approval.

ATTORNEY(S): Kenneth J. Falk, Gavin M. Rose

 

The ACLU defends basic freedoms, every day, for every American. Support us with your tax deductible gift today.