Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003)

In this opinion, the Second Circuit affirms a holding in favor of HIV-positive New York City residents who brought suit against the city for failure to provide them with adequate access to public benefits under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The opinion discusses and affirms the "unique physical barriers" that people with HIV face with respect to obtaining access to public benefits and services. The defendants in the case conceded that the plaintiffs, who lived with AIDS and other HIV-related diseases, were qualified individuals under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

The opinion also concerns the issue of what constitutes discrimination on the basis of disability when both individuals with disabilities and those without them face impeded access to public services. The Second Circuit rejected the argument that the plaintiffs must show that they were disparately affected in order to bring a reasonable accommodation claim. Plaintiffs need only show that they were unable to access the benefits or services because of their disability; they need not show that they were less able to access them than those without a disability. The court further held that, where a public benefits system is so "broken" that no one can access services properly, plaintiffs must only demonstrate that (1) they are facially entitled to public benefits that are also available to similarly situated persons without disabilities, and (2) under a state of affairs where the system functioned properly, their disabilities would necessitate a reasonable accommodation in order for them to meaningfully access the benefits, and that they are not receiving this accommodation.

The opinion upholds an injunction that required the defendants to comply with the DASIS law—a city law that provided benefits to assist people with clinical/symptomatic HIV and AIDS to access benefits—as a reasonable accommodation. The Second Circuit also discussed what is a reasonable accommodation in light of a system that provides on a percentage of those who are eligible—whether affected by a disability or not—meaningful access.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals also confirmed the view that the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 create parallel protections for individual with disabilities accessing government services. The Court expressed its agreement with the district court that "[although there are subtle differences between [the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA], the standards adopted by Title II of the ADA for State and local government services are generally the same as those required under section 504 of federally assisted programs and activities…Indeed, unless one of those subtle distinctions is pertinent to a particular case, we treat claims under the two statutes identically." In addressing allegations related to a city agency's failure to provide reasonable accommodations in the implementation of programs with a mandate to serve people affected by HIV, "[n]one of the distinctions between the two statutes is relevant here."

The Second Circuit also held that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act impose supervisory liability on the state defendant for the failings of the city defendant, and that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act allow suits against an individual sued in her official capacity.