ACLU Charges AmeriCorps Health Screening Policy Violates Disability Discrimination Law
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties and the ACLU of the District of Columbia filed an administrative complaint today with the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal volunteer service agency that operates the AmeriCorps community service program. The complaint charges the agency’s health screening policy is unlawful and discriminatory.
The complaint was filed on behalf of 22-year-old Susie Balcom, a recent college graduate and two-term AmeriCorps state program alumna who received multiple offers to serve with the national program. After she completed the CNCS medical questionnaire, which included her mental health history, the offers were rescinded.
Balcom’s complaint was filed on behalf of all current and recent applicants for service positions with the AmeriCorps National Civilian Community Corps who either have or who were regarded as having a mental health disability as part of the CNCS health screening process. The complaint alleges the process violates the Rehabilitation Act, the federal law that prohibits disability discrimination by federal agencies, as well as CNCS’s own civil rights policy.
In April 2017, Balcom accepted a one-year position to serve as a support team leader, which would require her to coordinate logistics and trainings for members in the AmeriCorps office in Mississippi. In May, she was contacted by an AmeriCorps counselor who had additional questions regarding the three sessions of counseling she sought for anxiety. She explained that she had been sexually groped by a co-worker and had sought counseling for self-care. A few weeks later, AmeriCorps notified Balcom that she was disqualified from service because of the anxiety she had disclosed on the medical form.
“I am challenging AmeriCorps’ discriminatory health screening process so that no qualified American who wants to serve is turned away. Every young person who wants to give back to our country should have the opportunity to do so without fear of being rejected based on an irrelevant medical history or disability,” said Balcom. “I am a sexual-assault survivor and advocate. I should not be punished and denied the chance to contribute to my community for experiencing anxiety or seeking counseling that helped me move forward.”
AmeriCorps uses guidelines that discriminate against people with disabilities, including people with anxiety. The guidelines state that applicants should be deferred from service if they began therapy for anxiety within the past six months, despite the fact that people who seek therapy are often fully capable of service.
The CNCS medical questionnaire requires applicants to respond to a wide-ranging list of intrusive and overbroad medical questions. Applicants must disclose their medical history for the previous five years including, “dates, details of condition, treatment received, and current status” regarding ER visits, hospital admissions, and any treatment, therapy, counseling, or medication for any behavioral or mental health condition. The form requires applicants to “list all medications you are taking, including nonprescription drugs, vitamins, and herbal supplements,” and to state the dose, frequency, when first prescribed, and reason for taking.
“AmeriCorps does important work across the country, but to truly embody its mission and empower our communities, everyone must be given a fair chance to serve,” said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project. “The current policy is both intrusive and unlawful, and denies people with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in one of the country’s most respected community service programs. We are calling on the agency to recognize that its health screening process is discriminatory and must be changed.”
Other institutions that have engaged in similarly broad health screenings have been found liable for discrimination. A court concluded that the Peace Corps violated the Rehabilitation Act when it applied one-size-fits-all mental health screening guidelines instead of investigating whether applicants are qualified based on individual circumstances.
Balcom’s complaint asks CNCS to conduct non-discriminatory health screenings, reverse negative decisions about medical clearance where required by law, and provide an opportunity to serve with AmeriCorps as soon as practicable. It also asks the agency to change policies and procedures inquiring about and assessing applicants’ medical and mental health so that they no longer discriminate based on disability and sex.
The complaint can be found here:
/legal-document/balcom-v-americorps-administrative-complaint
Disability Rights
Women's Rights
Balcom v. AmeriCorps
Disability Rights
Women's Rights
Balcom v. AmeriCorps
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
CaliforniaDec 2024
Disability Rights
Powers v. McDonoughPowers v. McDonough
Every night, thousands of veterans sleep without shelter on the streets of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Department of Veterans Affairs owns hundreds of acres of land in prime West Los Angeles—land directly adjacent to a VA medical facility that was once earmarked to house veterans, but today is instead home to private school sports fields and an oil well. In November 2022, a group of unhoused veterans and a non-profit organization filed suit alleging that the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) failed to provide adequate housing and health care to veterans with severe disabilities in Los Angeles. These failures have significantly undermined veterans’ abilities to access the benefits they are entitled to by law, leaving many stranded on the streets after serving our country. The veterans sued the VA under the Rehabilitation Act, a federal statute that prohibits federal agencies from discriminating against people with disabilities. As a remedy, the plaintiffs seek the construction of significant units of permanent supportive housing on the The VA argued that a provision of the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”)— a federal statute that prohibits federal district courts from second-guessing VA’s individualized benefits determinations—bars federal district courts from hearing the veterans’ Rehabilitation Act claims. Should the court accept this position, it would deprive veterans of a meaningful opportunity to have their rights under the Rehabilitation Act and other generally applicable nondiscrimination statutes enforced. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Criminal Law Reform
Disability Rights
Incarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use OpioidsIncarceration Should Not be a Death Sentence for Individuals Who Use Opioids
New litigation centered on increasing access to substance-use disorder treatment in jails and prisons is helping to reduce mortality rates among incarcerated individuals. -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Disability Rights
Criminal Law Reform
Lawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to ProceedLawsuit Challenging Armed Police Response to Mental Health Emergencies in Washington, D.C. to Proceed
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today rejected the District of Columbia’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the law firm Sheppard Mullin. The lawsuit contends that the District’s emergency response system discriminates against people with mental health disabilities by deploying armed police officers to address the vast majority of mental health crises while sending trained medical professionals to most other health emergencies. “This ruling moves us one step closer to bringing essential, life-saving emergency mental health care to D.C. communities. Qualified providers are best equipped to handle mental health emergencies with skills and compassion; police with a gun only serve to escalate, handcuff, and arrest,” said Ashika Verriest, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Criminal Law Reform Project. “Far too many people are harmed at the hands of police during a mental health crisis, or simply receive ineffective care. This must end.” The plaintiff in the case is Bread for the City, a D.C.-based nonprofit supporting underserved communities. The lawsuit contends that the District’s unequal response to mental health crises violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ruling will move the case forward, allowing the ACLU to show in court that a fully functioning mental health crisis response system that sends a medical, rather than a law enforcement, response to most mental health crises is legally required. “Relying on mental health professionals, not armed police, to serve people experiencing mental health crises is not just logical, it’s required under the law. Today’s decision made clear that communities can’t single out mental health emergencies for worse services than other health emergencies,” said Michael Perloff, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia. The ruling comes on the heels of a recommendation made in a similar case filed against Washington County, Oregon by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oregon, Disability Rights Oregon, and Sheppard Mullin. On August 30, 2024, a federal magistrate judge recognized that sending police, rather than health providers to a mental health crisis, may be discrimination against people with mental health disabilities in violation of federal law. The magistrate judge recommended that the case proceed. More details about the case are accessible here: /cases/bread-for-the-city-v-district-of-columbia -
Press ReleaseSep 2024
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Judge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with DisabilitiesJudge Orders Supervision System in Washington, D.C. to Accommodate People with Disabilities
WASHINGTON – A federal court granted a preliminary injunction yesterday in a case filed on behalf of people with disabilities on parole and supervised release in Washington, D.C., ordering immediate action to address discriminatory conditions faced by the two named plaintiffs. The court also denied the government’s motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of D.C., Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and Latham & Watkins LLP, challenges the federal government’s post-conviction supervision system in Washington, D.C. for systematically ignoring the needs of people with disabilities, thereby setting them up for failure on supervision and putting them at constant risk of sanctions, including incarceration. As the court held in its decision, such accommodations are likely required under federal disability law, specifically the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The preliminary injunction requires that the United States Parole Commission and the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA), the two federal agencies responsible for supervision in D.C., assess what reasonable accommodations the two named plaintiffs require to have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision, and provide all such required accommodations. “Absent an injunction,” the court’s decision reads, “the Parolees will be forced to participate in the Government’s supervision programs on an unequal footing just because of their disabilities.” People on supervision in D.C. are required to comply with myriad and onerous rules. For people with disabilities, navigating these complex conditions is even more challenging. For example, Plaintiff Mr. Mathis — a 70-year-old military veteran with congestive heart failure that limits his ability to walk — struggles to travel throughout the city to attend frequent supervision meetings that often conflict with necessary medical procedures and hospitalizations. His supervision officer required him to wear an ankle monitor even after his doctor warned the monitor would jeopardize his health due to his heart condition. Plaintiff Mr. Davis, who lives with chronic pain stemming from third-degree burns as well as mental health conditions, also faces disability-related barriers getting to required meetings. Yet failing to meet any of these conditions, even something as simple as missing an appointment, can land a person back in jail or prison, even when no new criminal conduct is alleged. The court agreed that “absent immediate relief, the Parolees will face irreparable harm; namely, obstacles to success on supervision solely because of their disabilities, which expose them to downstream harms like revocation and reincarceration.” The court did not decide whether it will ultimately certify a class that could yield relief for all people on supervision in D.C. who need accommodations. Instead, the court directed the parties to agree on a schedule for further proceedings on that issue. “The undue hardships faced by people with disabilities on federal criminal supervision in the District of Columbia have gone unaddressed for too long,” said Scott Michelman, legal director, ACLU of the District of Columbia. “This decision is a victory for equal treatment and common sense.” “The Court’s opinion emphatically rejects the federal government's ‘do-nothing’ policy for people with disabilities on supervision in Washington, D.C., who have been forced to navigate onerous requirements without accommodations for decades,” said Allison Frankel, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “This ruling ensures that our named Plaintiffs will have the accommodations they need to have a fair shot at completing parole and remaining in their communities.“ “We are thrilled the Court recognized that the Parole Commission and CSOSA must accommodate our clients’ disabilities so that they have an equal opportunity to succeed on supervision,” said Zoé Friedland, staff attorney with the Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia. “We will keep fighting to make this relief permanent and systemic so that all people on supervision have an equal chance to succeed.” The decision on the preliminary injunction can be found here: /cases/mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission?document=Preliminary-Injunction-Opinion The complaint can be found here: /documents/w-mathis-v-united-states-parole-commission-complaint