White v. Department of Children & Families, 136 Conn. App. 759

Plaintiff Dorcas White, a former social worker, alleges disability discrimination under 46a-60(a)(1) and retaliation under 46a-60(a)(4).
She began employment in 2003, suffered back injuries, and had periods of light duty and medical leave with permanent restrictions by 2006.
The Department of Children and Families terminated her in 2006 after determining permanent limitations prevented return to work.
White filed a 2004 commission complaint; it was dismissed in 2005; she later filed a 2006 Superior Court action alleging race discrimination and Workers’ Compensation retaliation.
In 2009 she filed a new two-count Superior Court action alleging disability discrimination and retaliation; the trial court dismissed as untimely under the statute of limitations.
The issue is whether § 52-592 saves these untimely claims and whether the claims arose from the same action as the prior federal court proceedings, affecting timeliness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 52-592 saves untimely disability claims.	White argues the same facts support a single cause of action and § 52-592 applies to save untimely state claims.	Dept. contends the disability claims arise from a separate, new cause of action not saved by § 52-592.	No; § 52-592 does not apply to these new, separate claims.
Whether the disability claims arise from the same cause of action as the prior federal court claims.	White contends the claims stem from the same set of facts.	Dept. argues the disability claims require distinct conduct and motives from prior claims.	The disability claims constitute a new, distinct cause of action not related back to the prior action.
Whether the claims were timely under the 90-day release deadline after the commission release.	Release was obtained before federal judgment; it should trigger a timely filing.	Even if release occurred earlier, it was more than one year before 2009 filing; timebar.	Even assuming release occurred, it was outside the 90-day window, so untimely.

Daoust v. McWilliams, 49 Conn. App. 715 (1998) (whether § 52-592 saves only claims dismissed without merits in federal court)
Tellar v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 114 Conn. App. 244 (2009) (plenary review on § 52-592 interpretation)
Davis v. Family Dollar Store, 78 Conn. App. 235 (2003) (remedial nature of § 52-592; notice to adversary about continuing rights)
Waillancourt v. Latifi, 81 Conn. App. 541 (2004) (illustrative discussion of standards in related context)
Sherman v. Ronco, 294 Conn. 548 (2010) (new theory of liability requires evidence within original scope; relate-back limits)
Craine v. Trinity College, 259 Conn. 625 (2002) (burden in proving prima facie case of discrimination; relation back)