State of Connecticut Among Many Defendants in Sprawling Discrimination Class Action

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A sprawling 87-page proposed class action lawsuit filed against the state of Connecticut and its judicial branch, attorney general, and a host of judges, state agencies, attorneys and doctors lays out allegations that the plaintiffs—an adult and her unnamed minor child who the case says both have a mental health disability—were discriminated against as a result of the defendants:

• Acting on “assumptions and sex based stereotypes” about the plaintiffs’ disabilities;
• Failing to “individually analyze what services and supports would be appropriate” considering those disabilities; and
• Refusing to provide individualized treatment and accommodations to ensure the plaintiffs had full and equal opportunity to the adult plaintiff’s child custody court proceedings.

The lawsuit’s subject matter, the adult plaintiff says, is a “matter of significant public safety” that outlines an alleged pattern of wrongful conduct against women and children subjected to domestic violence, which she goes so far as to claim the defendants have enabled for years. The court model for handling such issues is also put under a microscope in the complaint, as the plaintiff calls the system an industry by which the defendants can use vulnerable individuals, i.e. victims of domestic violence, to generate long-term revenue.

Item 18 in the complaint sums up the plaintiff’s allegations against the stable of defendants:

“The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated across the United States are being discriminated … and not allowed access to justice also resulting in the deprivation of honest services. The State of Connecticut et al. (as well around the country) is willfully defrauding women from custody of their children and assets by exploiting their disabilities, discriminating against their disabilities, sex and marital status and providing faulty training, employing policies, standard approaches and models of ‘performance based contracting for father serving programs.’ Taxpayer money mandates men receiving custody of minor children regardless of whether or not these men engage in physical, sexual and/or psychological abuse. The State of Connecticut allows a taxpayer enhanced, profit-generating industry dependent on abuse to franchise the family court system. Federal law states that an individual has the right to choose his or her own healthcare providers and decline as well. However, [the plaintiffs] were forced into several evaluations by the defendants where their mental health was questioned by providers they did not choose and to whom they objected.”