Date: 07-28-2023

Case Style:

Angela Puccinelli v. Southern Connecticut State University, et al.

Case Number: 3:21-CV-763

Judge: Sarala V. Nagala

Court: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Elizabeth Adams

Defendant's Attorney: Mary Kathryn Lenchan

Description: New Haven, Connecticut civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on Americans with Disabilities Act violation theories.


In this federal civil rights action, Plaintiff Angela Puccinelli alleges that Defendant Southern Connecticut State University (“SCSU”), and Defendants Joe Bertolino, Stephen Hegedus, Robert Prezant, and Kara Faraclas (the “Individual Defendants,” and collectively with SCSU, “Defendants”), discriminated against her based on her disability, unlawfully retaliated against her, and violated her right to procedural due process when she was a student at SCSU. The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff's amended complaint in full without prejudice to Plaintiff seeking leave to amend to remedy the deficiencies described in the Court's dismissal ruling. See ECF No. 33. Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint alleging that SCSU violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12182, by intentionally discriminating against her, retaliating against her, and denying her reasonable accommodations, and that the Individual Defendants violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process.

* * *


The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects

10

of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. While the Eleventh Amendment does not expressly provide that citizens of a state cannot sue their own state, the Supreme Court has held that a state that refuses to consent to suit is immune from suits brought in federal courts “by her own citizens.” Emps. of Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare v. Dep't of Pub. Health & Welfare, 411 U.S. 279, 280 (1973). This proscription “extends to any entity considered to be an ‘arm of the State,' which includes state universities.” Tomasko v. W. Conn. State Univ., No. 3:11CV1019 (JBA), 2012 WL 3062156, at *1 (D. Conn. July 26, 2012) (internal citation omitted).

There are two primary exceptions to sovereign immunity: “(1) a state may waive its immunity from suit, or (2) Congress may expressly and validly abrogate the immunity pursuant to specific authority, such as its authority under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Kelly v. N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys., No. 21-1633, 2022 WL 1210665, at *2 (2d Cir. Apr. 25, 2022) (summary order). When it enacted the ADA, Congress “invoke[d] the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to enforce the fourteenth amendment.” United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 154 (2006) (alteration in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(4)). In connection with this authority, the ADA provides that “[a] State shall not be immune under the eleventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States from an action in Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 12202 (footnote omitted). The Supreme Court has held that this language constitutes “an unequivocal expression of Congress's intent to abrogate state sovereign immunity.” Georgia, 546 U.S. at 154.

Outcome: Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: