Zuro v. Darien, 432 F.Supp.3d 116

Background

Sarah Zuro was an elected Darien Board of Education member who, with her husband Brian, successfully obtained an out-of-district special-education placement for one child; their older son Charles was also a special-education student at Darien High School.
On October 1, 2016, DHS football coach Robert Trifone allegedly struck Charles during a game; an investigation and subsequent suspensions followed and a competing public narrative was circulated by Trifone and others.
Plaintiffs allege Superintendent Daniel Brenner and various Board members, school employees, and community actors (including the Darien Athletic Foundation and local media) coordinated a campaign of retaliation and harassment: dissemination of confidential student information, defamatory accounts in local press, ongoing bullying of Charles, and public attacks on Sarah, leading to her resignation.
Plaintiffs sued in federal court asserting retaliation claims under the ADA and Section 504, and a number of state-law tort and defamation claims; several defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and some filed anti‑SLAPP special motions under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑196a.
The district court dismissed the federal ADA/Section 504 retaliation claim with prejudice for failure to plausibly plead a causal connection between protected activity and adverse actions (and for other pleading defects), declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims (dismissed without prejudice), and denied the anti‑SLAPP motions without prejudice.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs pleaded a viable ADA/Section 504 retaliation claim	Zuros contend their advocacy for special-education services and out‑of‑district placement was protected activity and defendants retaliated, causing adverse actions against Sarah and Charles	Defendants argue plaintiffs failed to allege a causal link between the advocacy and the alleged retaliatory acts, and that many adverse acts were not tied to disability-based animus	Dismissed with prejudice: complaint fails to plausibly allege retaliatory motive, temporal proximity, or disparate treatment linking disability advocacy to adverse acts
Whether a “cat’s paw” theory imputes Brenner’s alleged retaliatory motive to other actors	Plaintiffs say Brenner manipulated other defendants and thus his motive should be imputed under a cat’s paw theory	Defendants say plaintiffs did not plead facts showing Brenner played a meaningful, decisive role in others’ adverse actions	Court declined to reach the doctrinal question but held plaintiffs failed to plead facts to support a cat’s paw theory here
Whether to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims	Plaintiffs sought to keep state claims in federal court	Defendants implicitly argued dismissal of federal claims warranted dismissal of state claims	Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed state claims without prejudice to refiling in state court
Whether the court should decide the anti‑SLAPP special motions now	Media/others moved under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52‑196a to dismiss	Plaintiffs opposed; procedural posture complicated because federal claims were central	Court denied the special motions without prejudice (declining to rule on merits after dismissing federal claims)

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires factual content to state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility requirement at pleading stage)
Weixel v. Bd. of Educ. of New York, 287 F.3d 138 (elements of retaliation claim under ADA/Section 504)
Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (temporal proximity must be very close to infer causation)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (cat’s paw theory articulated)
Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 835 F.3d 267 (Second Circuit application of cat’s paw in retaliation context)
Natofsky v. City of New York, 921 F.3d 337 (discussing cat’s paw and causation in Rehab Act-related analysis)
Eskenazi-McGibney v. Connetquot Cent. Sch. Dist., 84 F. Supp. 3d 221 (dismissal of ADA/Section 504 claims lacking allegations linking bullying to disability)
Lundy v. Catholic Health Sys. of Long Island Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)
Carnegie‑Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (comity and declining supplemental jurisdiction when federal claims dismissed)