Wayne Soignier v. American Board of Plastic Surgery

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, under the ADA, “discovery of the original act of discrimination, not future confirmation of the injury or determination that the injury is unlawful, is when the statute of limitations begins to run”
• rejecting plaintiffs contention that the point for accrual is “when this interactive process between the parties breaks down” because the discovery of the original discriminatory act nonetheless en ables a plaintiff to protect his rights
• noting that “internal appeals are not part of the ADA statutory procedure and.do not toll the time for filing suit” and finding that plaintiff “had to file suit within two years of the accrual date even if he had not exhausted all possible internal remedies”
• noting, in ADA context, that internal appeal \merely confirmed the Board’s earlier decisions that sufficient accommodations had already been made for [the plaintiff's] disabilities” and \does not affect the date on which his claim accrued”
• “Rather than an independent wrong, the denial of [an internal] appeal merely confirmed the Board’s earlier decisions,” and thus did not affect the accrual date
• same statute of limitations applies to claims brought under Title II or Title III of the ADA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).