Perry v. City of Stamford
996 F. Supp. 2d 74
D. Conn.2014Background
- Plaintiff Corinne Perry (formerly Corinne Stevens) sues the City of Stamford under §1983/§1988 alleging sex- and cancer-survivor status discrimination in public employment.
- Plaintiff applied to become a Stamford Police Officer in 2004 and again in 2006; in July 2006 Murphy informed her that her application was rejected after a background check alleged she had inflated an insurance claim.
- Plaintiff contends the City concealed evidence relevant to her claim and that the three-year limitations period for §1983 suits was tolled by fraudulent concealment.
- Defendant asserts no knowledge of Plaintiff's breast cancer history by those involved in evaluating her 2006 application and argues Plaintiff has produced no admissible evidence to contradict this.
- The court grants summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds, finding no basis to toll the period via fraudulent concealment; it does not reach later §1983 arguments due to the ruling on timing.
- The court highlights evidentiary admissibility issues with proffered state court deposition materials but states this is largely irrelevant to its ultimate decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §1983 claim is time-barred | Perry argues tolling due to fraudulent concealment. | Stamford says limitations expired in 2009. | Claim barred; time bar not tolled. |
| Whether fraudulent concealment tolls the limitations period | Evidence supports concealment of knowledge of cancer history. | No sufficient non-conclusory proof of concealment. | No equitable tolling; fraudulent-concealment claim fails. |
| Whether a City policy or custom caused the discrimination | Discrimination stems from an official policy. | No proof of a policy; decisions were individualized. | Not reached; court dispositively rules on statute of limitations. |
| Whether state-court deposition evidence is admissible and material | State-deposition materials support discrimination claim. | Evidence may be excluded or given limited weight. | Admissibility unresolved but ultimately immaterial to outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lounsbury v. Jeffries, 25 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 1994) (borrowing Connecticut limitations for §1983 actions)
- Hogan v. Fischer, 738 F.3d 509 (2d Cir. 2013) (§1983 uses state personal-injury limits)
- Ossegai v. Bloomfield Bd. of Ed., 165 F. App’x 932 (2d Cir. 2006) (distinct tolling considerations under §52-595)
- Barile v. City of Hartford, 264 Fed.Appx. 91 (2d Cir. 2008) (accrual and limitations in §1983 context)
- Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139 (2d Cir. 1995) (fraudulent concealment tolling requires concealment; discovery rule)
- Harrison v. Harlem Hospital, 364 Fed.Appx. 686 (2d Cir. 2010) (no tolling where plaintiff could identify facts after period)
- Pearl v. City of Long Beach, 296 F.3d 1019 (2d Cir. 2002) ((not included due to uncertainty about citation in this context))