January 8, 2015
Honorable Ed Lee
Mayor, City and County of San Francisco
City Hall, 1 Doctor Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 200
San Francisco, CA 94102
Copies to Board of Supervisors:
Supervisor Eric Mar
Supervisor Mark Farrell
Supervisor Katy Tang
Supervisor London Breed
Supervisor Jane Kim
Supervisor Norman Yee
Supervisor Scott Wiener
Supervisor David Campos
Supervisor Malia Cohen
Supervisor John Avalos
Dennis Herrera
City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco
City Hall, 1 Doctor Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 234
San Francisco, CA 94102
Copies to:
Greg Suhr
Chief of Police
850 Bryant Street, Room 525
San Francisco, California 94103
Suzy Loftus
President, Police Commission
850 Bryant Street, Room 505
San Francisco, California 94103
Re: City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan
Dear Mayor Lee and City Attorney Herrera:
On behalf of the undersigned organizations and individuals, representing millions of Americans with disabilities, we urge you to withdraw your appeal in the case of City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court. Your appeal to the Supreme Court puts the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—the most comprehensive civil rights law for individuals with disabilities—at risk.
San Francisco has long been recognized for its leadership in disability rights. From Mayor Moscone’s support of the 1977 Section 504 sit–in that led to the implementation of the Rehabilitation Act, to the Department of Public Health’s commitment to persons with HIV, to its ongoing efforts to enhance accessibility in museums and other tourist destinations, San Francisco is viewed in many ways as a model of disability-friendly policies and politics.
The Sheehan case could damage San Francisco’s reputation irreparably. The City Attorney’s petition to the Court asks for an interpretation of the ADA that would leave people with psychiatric disabilities without the ability to require law enforcement to be reasonably responsive to their needs.[1] It also suggests that people with psychiatric disabilities have lesser rights under the ADA, purportedly because their needs cannot be known, despite the fact that police are trained nationwide in proven strategies for safely engaging people with psychiatric disabilities. San Francisco’s position represents a major step backwards.
People with disabilities need the ADA’s protections when they encounter law enforcement. The nation, the state, and the Bay Area’s attention is rightly focused on the need to implement safer police practices. A local review of 51 San Francisco police officer–involved shootings between 2005 and 2013 found that 58 percent of the 19 individuals killed by police had a psychiatric disability. Individuals with many types of disabilities, including intellectual disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, diabetes, epilepsy, and deafness, face dangerous and often deadly consequences when law enforcement officials fail to follow federal disability rights laws.
While San Francisco may intend to craft arguments that it believes will limit the damage to individuals’ rights under the ADA, it will have little control over what the Supreme Court does.
Please do not lead the charge to weaken the ADA.
Other elected and appointed state leaders have recognized the need to withdraw a Supreme Court appeal when it endangered the ADA.[2] We urge you to exercise similar leadership.
Representatives from the community are eager to meet with you about this important matter. Please contact Claudia Center, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU at 415–343–0762 or 415–531–2874 to schedule a meeting.
Thank you.
ACLU Foundation
ACLU of Northern California
Jeff Adachi, Public Defender of San Francisco
ADAPT
AIDS Legal Referral Panel
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Diabetes Association
Autistic Self Advocacy Network
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
California Association of Mental Health Peer Run Organizations
California Foundation for Independent Living Centers
Californians for Disability Rights
Cal-TASH
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center
Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, San Francisco
Disability Rights Advocates
Disability Rights California
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
Equal Justice Society
General Assistance Advocacy Project
Helping Educate to Advance the Rights of the Deaf (HEARD)
Ella Baker Center
Independent Living Resource Center, San Francisco
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
Legal Aid Society — Employment Law Center
Mental Health America
Mental Health Association in California
Mental Health Association of San Francisco
National Alliance on Mental Illness
National Association of State Directors of Developmental Disabilities Services
National Council for Behavioral Health
National Council on Independent Living
National Disability Rights Network
National Down Syndrome Congress
Mental Health Advocacy Services
Peers Envisioning & Engaging in Recovery Services
People with Disabilities Foundation
Prison Law Office
Public Advocates
Quality Trust for Individuals with Disabilities
Rosen, Bien, Galvan & Grunfeld LLP
TASH
Transgender Law Center
United Spinal Association
[1] The petition’s interpretation is also contrary to the plain language of the Act. See Pennsylvania v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (declining to read exceptions into the ADA’s unambiguous coverage of all programs, services and activities of a public entity).
[2] In 2000, Governor Gray Davis pulled an appeal of a case regarding parking placard fees, stating: “I simply will not be party to any lawsuit that could put the Americans with Disabilities Act in jeopardy.” In 2003, the California Medical Board dropped an appeal at the urging of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of the Department of Rehabilitation, who argued: “[W]e believe it would be inconsistent for the Medical Board to place California in the position of leading the charge to significantly scale back the advances in national disability public policy in the absence of a reasonable alternative.”