Lee v. Department of Children & Families, 939 F. Supp. 2d 160

Lee, a DCF employee since 1992, developed disabilities alleged to be mold-related after transferring to CJTS in 2001.
She took medical leave in 2004 for worsening conditions, and returned to a 90-day temporary assignment in 2004 with what plaintiff alleges was a mold-exacerbating environment.
Lee was moved to 55 W. Main in Meriden in 2008, an assignment she refused as unsafe due to mold, and she soon went back on medical leave after an allergic reaction.
Defendants allegedly did not provide appropriate accommodations or safe locations, and terminated Lee in March 2009 for alleged neglect and attendance.
She filed EEOC charges in June 2009 and subsequently sued, alleging ADA, Rehabilitation Act, CFEPA, and CWCRA violations.
The court later granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1)/(b)(6) motion, with specific dismissals and survivals noted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eleventh Amendment immunity re ADA Title I claims	Lee sues state entities; seeks monetary and injunctive relief under Title I.	State immune from Title I damages; Eleventh Amendment applies.	ADA Title I claims against DCF dismissed; Katz only for prospective relief.
Eleventh Amendment immunity re state-law claims (CFEPA and CWCRA)	Counts IV–V can proceed in federal court despite Eleventh Amendment.	States are immune from federal court suits on these state-law claims.	Counts IV and V dismissed in their entirety.
ADA Title II claims for employment discrimination	Title II may cover state-employer discrimination in employment.	Title II does not cover employment discrimination by public entities in this context.	ADA Title II claims dismissed.
Timeliness and continuing-violation theory for pre-termination conduct	Pre-termination conduct can constitute a continuing violation tolling the period.	Pre-termination acts are discrete; Morgan framework applies to determine timeliness.	Title I claims based on pre-termination conduct are time-barred as discrete acts; Rehabilitation Act pre-termination claims may toll under Neuhaus continuing-course doctrine; thus mixed outcome.

Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (no Eleventh Amendment abrogation for Title I damages against states)
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (state sovereign immunity waiver must be unequivocal)
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (U.S. 1974) (official-capacity suits and prospective relief limitations)
Elmenayer v. ABF Freight System, Inc., 318 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2003) (denial of accommodation is a discrete act; continuing-violation doctrine limited)
Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts vs. continuing violations; timing of claims)
Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1986) (continuing-violation framework for adverse actions over time)
Chin v. Port Authority of New Jersey, 685 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2012) (discrete acts analysis in accommodation-related claims)
M.K. ex rel. Mrs. K v. Sergi, 554 F. Supp. 2d 175 (D. Conn. 2008) (continuing course of conduct considerations in discrimination claims)
Neuhaus v. DeCholnoky, 280 Conn. 190 (Conn. 2006) (continuing course of conduct tolling doctrine in Connecticut)
Lyon v. Jones, 291 Conn. 384 (Ct. 2009) (Connecticut waiver of immunity under §46a-100 discussed in state context)
Dwyer v. Regan, 777 F.2d 825 (2d Cir. 1985) (Eleventh Amendment scope and state-suit immunity)
Coll. Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666 (U.S. 1999) (state consent to suit requires clear expression)
Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (U.S. 1985) (clear-expression rule for state waiver of immunity)