991 F.3d 418
2d Cir.2021Background
- Parents Karin Hasemann (narcolepsy) and Joseph Watley (spinal injury) faced prolonged Connecticut child-neglect and termination proceedings that culminated in a 2013 state-court decision terminating their parental rights to two children.
- State courts repeatedly addressed whether DCF made "reasonable efforts" to reunify the parents with their children while taking into account their actual or perceived mental/medical conditions.
- The state trial court found DCF made reasonable (indeed "extraordinary" in some respects) reunification efforts; the Connecticut appellate court affirmed the termination and rejected the parents' ADA-based challenge to the process (including denial of an ADA coordinator).
- Plaintiffs thereafter sued in federal court alleging violations of Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983 due process claims, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The district court dismissed the amended complaint primarily on collateral estoppel/issue-preclusion grounds (and referenced the ADA "direct threat" defense); the Second Circuit affirmed because the federal claims would relitigate issues actually litigated and necessarily decided in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA/RA claims are barred by collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) | Hasemann/Watley: federal ADA/RA issues differ from state "reasonable efforts" inquiry and were not actually litigated | DCF: state courts decided whether DCF considered parents' disabilities and made reasonable efforts; same issue | Affirmed — issue precluded: state courts actually litigated and necessarily decided the question of reasonable efforts considering disabilities |
| Whether denial of an ADA coordinator and other specific accommodation requests were unlitigated ADA claims | Plaintiffs: state court did not assess ADA compliance or accommodation standards | DCF: requests (e.g., ADA coordinator, placement, providers, visitation) were raised and denied; state court addressed those facts | Affirmed — those requests were litigated and resolved by state court; collateral estoppel applies |
| Whether the ADA direct-threat exception or ADA merits should be reached | Plaintiffs: DCF failed to provide reasonable accommodations and meaningful access | DCF: state-court findings show reunification posed risks not eliminated by modifications; direct-threat defense applies | District court relied partly on direct-threat; Second Circuit affirmed on preclusion grounds and therefore did not fully reach merits |
| Other defenses (Rooker–Feldman, statute of limitations, standing, qualified immunity) | Plaintiffs: federal forum available for ADA/RA and § 1983 claims | DCF: multiple jurisdictional/defensive bars | Court: affirmed dismissal on collateral estoppel; did not need to resolve Rooker–Feldman, statute, or standing issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoblock v. Albany Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 422 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2005) (Full Faith and Credit requires federal courts to give state judgments same preclusive effect)
- Lyon v. Jones, 291 Conn. 384 (Conn. 2009) (connecticut standard for issue preclusion: actually litigated and necessarily determined)
- Corcoran v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 271 Conn. 679 (Conn. 2004) (prior litigation must resolve same legal or factual issue)
- Postlewaite v. McGraw-Hill, 333 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003) (party asserting preclusion bears burden to identify prior issue clearly)
- Wright v. New York State Dep’t of Corr., 831 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2016) (elements of a prima facie ADA/RA claim)
- Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003) (reasonable accommodation defined as meaningful access)
- In re Joseph W., Jr., 146 Conn. App. 468 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013) (appellate rejection of ADA defense in termination appeal)
- In re Unique R., 170 Conn. App. 833 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017) (definition and scope of Connecticut "reasonable efforts" standard)
- In re Antony B., 54 Conn. App. 463 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999) (mental condition must be considered in reasonable-efforts analysis)