139 Conn. App. 216
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Mercer sues state corrections employees in their official capacities alleging ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and equal protection violations; seeks monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and declaratory/injunctive relief for disability-based discrimination.
- Mercer has two neurological disorders impairing balance and walking and sought a daily piano practice accommodation at Osborn Correctional Institution.
- Mercer alleged denial of reasonable recreational accommodations and that other inmates receive such accommodations.
- Plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies and filed a four-count complaint on July 3, 2007.
- Defendants moved to strike for failure to state a claim; substitute pleading added one paragraph alleging disparate treatment; court granted motions to strike in 2008 and 2010.
- The trial court treated the action as against the state; sovereign immunity and abrogation under Title II and §504 were central to the court’s analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether monetary Title II claims against the state were properly struck. | Mercer contends ADA damages should survive despite no express animus. | Defendants argue no damages without discriminatory motive and sovereign immunity applies. | ADA damages against the state properly struck on other grounds; error harmless. |
| Whether declaratory/injunctive relief claims under ADA and Rehabilitation Act were sufficiently pleaded. | Mercer alleges disability-based denial of access to recreational activities. | Allegations fail to show denial of access due to disability; requests seek substantive changes, not reasonable accommodations. | Claims for declaratory/injunctive relief properly struck for insufficient factual pleading. |
| Whether equal protection claims were adequately pleaded. | Mercer claims class-of-one style discrimination based on disability. | Lacks specific instances of similarly situated inmates treated differently; conclusory allegations are insufficient. | Equal protection claim properly struck for failure to plead facts showing disparate treatment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Sciences Center, 280 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2001) (abrogation framework for Title II damages against states depending on discriminatory animus)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (U.S. 2006) (Title II abrogation of sovereign immunity when conduct violates Fourteenth Amendment)
- Mercer v. Strange, 96 Conn. App. 133 (Conn. App. 2010) (recap of abrogation and Georgia framework in Connecticut ADA/private action context)
- Divine Allah v. Goord, 405 F. Supp. 2d 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (ADA/§504 applicability to inmates and federal funds connection)
- Brooks v. Sweeney, 299 Conn. 196 (2010) (equal protection class-of-one analysis in prison context)