A Tale of Two Lawsuits: When the Courts Stepped In, Oregon’s Disability Services Changed Forever
Many individuals with developmental disabilities were forced to live on the margins of society for decades: housed in large institutions, placed on endless waitlists for services, and paid pennies per hour in sheltered workshops. Oregon was no exception. For most of the 20th century, the state relied heavily on institutionalization, with the Fairview Training Center serving as its largest and most notorious facility. There, residents faced overcrowding, abuse, and, in earlier decades, forced sterilization under state-sanctioned eugenics policies.1
By the turn of the millennium, Oregon’s developmental disability services system was in disarray. Fairview finally closed in 2000, ending nearly a century of institutionalization.2 A year earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Olmstead v. L.C. decision had sent shockwaves through disability services nationwide, ruling that unjustified segregation violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. In Oregon, that ruling helped lay the legal groundwork for two transformative lawsuits, Staley v. Kitzhaber and Lane v. Brown, that would force the state to fundamentally reform how it supports people with developmental disabilities.
Laying the Legal Foundation: Olmstead v. L.C.
The Olmstead decision was a watershed moment in disability rights. Two Georgia women, Lois Curtis (L.C.) and Elaine Wilson, sued the state, arguing that their continued confinement in a state psychiatric hospital violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits public entities from discriminating against people with disabilities. Though cleared by medical professionals to transition to community-based care, Curtis and Wilson remained institutionalized for years.
In siding with them in the 1999 case, the Supreme Court ruled that states must provide services “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”3 This meant states were now required to develop community-based alternatives to segregated settings like institutions and sheltered workshops, which could no longer be the default. Olmstead didn’t dictate exactly how states should reform their systems, but it gave disability rights advocates across the country a powerful legal foundation to challenge policies that kept people isolated.
In Oregon, those challenges came quickly. The reshaping of the state’s entire developmental disability service system had begun.
The Rise of Brokerages: Staley v. Kitzhaber
About a year after the Olmstead ruling, five Oregonians with developmental disabilities—James Staley, Helen Healy, Tara Peters, John Duffield, and Molly Drummond—filed a lawsuit against the state. Their case argued that Oregon was failing to comply with Olmstead by leaving thousands of eligible individuals on waitlists with little to no support. The suit quickly became a class action representing over 3,000 people, and ultimately led to a historic settlement in 2000.
At the time, Oregon offered very little in terms of community-based services for people with developmental disabilities. Individuals were often assessed and found eligible, but could remain on waitlists for years. To address this, the settlement mandated that Oregon create Support Service Brokerages—nonprofit organizations that would provide case management and coordinate person-centered services based on each individual’s needs and preferences.4 These brokerages emphasized local control, flexibility, and consumer choice. Brokerages are required to include individuals with developmental disabilities and their families on their boards, giving people a direct voice in how services are delivered.
Though imperfect, the model was a breakthrough. Challenges include inconsistent service quality across brokerages, a shortage of qualified workers, and limited access for people with more complex needs. Still, the creation of brokerages enabled Oregon to become one of the first states to roll out a self-directed developmental disability support system at scale.
Working for Less than Minimum Wage: Lane v. Brown
A decade after Staley, advocates began eyeing Oregon’s reliance on sheltered workshops as the next area ripe for reform. These were segregated settings where people with developmental disabilities often performed repetitive tasks, like folding napkins or assembling small products, frequently for less than minimum wage. Framed as a supportive alternative to competitive employment, these programs instead created a parallel system of low-wage workplaces that offered little opportunity for advancement or skill development.
In 2012, a coalition including Disability Rights Oregon, the U.S. Department of Justice, and private law firms filed Lane v. Brown. They argued that Oregon was violating the Olmstead decision and the Americans with Disabilities Act by unnecessarily segregating people into sheltered workshops rather than supporting them in competitive, integrated employment, where they would work alongside non-disabled peers for equal pay. In 2015, the state agreed to a landmark settlement that phased out sheltered workshops entirely by 2020, becoming the first in the nation to do so.5 The settlement also required Oregon to adopt an “Employment First” policy, prioritizing integrated employment as the preferred outcome for all working-age adults with developmental disabilities.
This monumental shift came with challenges. While many individuals were able to transition into meaningful employment, those with higher support needs found far fewer options. Service provider agencies struggled to build inclusive job pipelines, and staffing shortages limited the availability of job coaches. Still, Lane v. Brown set a national precedent and forced Oregon to align its employment services with Olmstead’s promise of community inclusion, dignity, and real opportunity.
Up Next: Housing Reform?
The transformation of Oregon’s developmental disability services didn’t begin with bold leadership from the governor or legislature—it began in court. Through these two cases, Oregon was forced to confront the ways it had excluded people with developmental disabilities from living meaningful lives in their communities. These legal victories profoundly reshaped the system, bringing self-directed services and integrated employment to the forefront. But the work isn’t finished. Today, the biggest barriers to inclusion may no longer be primarily found in institutions or workshops, but in the lack of affordable, accessible housing. A future How Important article will explore how Oregon is, or isn’t, living up to Olmstead’s promise when it comes to where people with developmental disabilities can call home.
Related articles: A Look at Homelessness Among Individuals with Developmental Disabilities, Healthcare Access for Homeless Individuals with Developmental Disabilities
Cera R. Lawrence, “Oregon State Board of Eugenics.” Embryo Project Encyclopedia. Accessed June 7, 2025. https://keep.lib.asu.edu/items/173589
Diann Drummond, "A Brief History of Fairview Training Center," The Clarion (Independence Northwest), accessed June 7, 2025. https://independencenw.org/clarionfairview
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). Accessed June 7, 2025. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/98-536.ZS.html
Oregon Department of Human Services. Staley v. Kitzhaber Settlement Agreement. 2000. Accessed June 7, 2025. https://digitalcollections.library.oregon.gov/nodes/view/96470
U.S. Department of Justice. United States v. Oregon (Lane v. Brown). Civil Rights Division. Accessed June 7, 2025. https://www.justice.gov/crt/case/united-states-v-oregon-lane-v-brown