Page 39 - CLT083120
P. 39
CONNECTICUT OPINIONS AUGUST 31, 2020 ¦ 39
U.S. DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, a former member of the Enfield Board
of Education, is autistic, hard of hearing, and
has auditory processing challenges. She sued
several defendants for equal access and dis-
CIVIL PROCEDURE crimination claims after board members refused
Court Severed East Haven Police to comply with her requested accommoda-
tions. The Town of Enfield moved to dismiss
Department from Action Where her complaint and the court denied the motion.
Plaintiff Also Sued U.S. Postal Service When ruling on the motion, the court consid-
for Different Claims ered plaintiff ’s Americans with Disabilities Act
and Rehabilitation Act claims together. The de-
fendant did not contest that plaintiff is a quali-
CASE: Alexander v. U.S. Postal Service fied individual with disabilities, that the Town is
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut subject to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act’s re-
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-1295 quirements, and that the Board denied plaintiff
COURT OPINION BY: Bryant her rights under the laws. However, the Town
DATE: August 14, 2020 • PAGES: 7 argued that plaintiff has failed to allege any
facts that suggest the Town has done anything
Plaintiffs alleged that a U.S. Postal Service let- to discriminate against her because of her dis-
ter carrier tried to deliver to them a piece of mail ability. Furthermore, the Town argued that by
that required a signature. Plaintiff was not home alleging wrongdoing only by Board members,
at the time, and he stated that the letter carrier plaintiff has failed to plead a claim against the
forged his signature on a legal document. Plain- Town. The court held that state law makes the
tiffs claimed that as a result of this forgery, their Board and its members agents of the Town with
personal belongings were auctioned off. They also respect to the conduct alleged in this case, and
alleged that they went to East Haven Police De- therefore the Town is liable for the Board’s ac-
partment to file a report, and an officer changed tions under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
the plaintiff’s statement from “forgery on a legal
document” to “forgery signing a check.” The
plaintiffs sued the U.S. Postal Service and the po-
lice department. The court severed the police de- DISCOVERY
partment from this action. The court considered
the statutory factors when severing that defendant. Court Granted in Part Plaintiff’s Motion
It found that the plaintiffs stated claims against two to Compel
separate defendants and these claims arose out of
two different transactions or occurrences. Plain- CASE: Purugganan v. AFC Franchising, LLC
tiffs’ claims against the police department were le- COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
gally different than against the postal service. Each DOC. NO.: 3:20-cv-00360
claim against each defendant will require different COURT OPINION BY: Dooley
witnesses and different documentary proof; there- DATE: August 17, 2020 • PAGES: 9
fore, severance facilitates settlement and judicial
economy. Lastly, the court reasoned that severance Plaintiff sued defendant seeking injunctive re-
avoided prejudicing the plaintiffs because keeping lief and damages after AFC allegedly breached
the cases together could confuse the jury. a Master Development Agreement entered into
between the plaintiff and AFC’s predecessor-in-
interest, Doctors Express Franchising. The court
did not discuss the underlying facts of the law-
CIVIL RIGHTS suit. Plaintiff filed a motion to compel responses
Court Found That Town Is Liable for to his requests for production, interrogatories,
and requests for admissions. The court granted
Board of Education’s Acts Under the the motion in part. Defendant objected, arguing
ADA and Rehabilitation Act proportionality. AFC argued that it stipulated to
the facts the plaintiff alleged in support of the
purported breach of the MDA and in particular
CASE: Hernandez v. Enfield Bd. of Educ. the motion for preliminary injunction, so any dis-
COURT: U.S. District Court for Connecticut
DOC. NO.: 3:19-cv-1907 covery as to those facts was irrelevant or dispro-
portionate. The court agreed with the plaintiff
COURT OPINION BY: Shea that some of the records and answers he sought
DATE: August 19, 2020 • PAGES: 15
CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune
