Legal Challenge Initiated to Connecticut’s Use of IQ to Deny Disability Services

Four young Connecticut residents with intellectual disabilities are challenging the state’s use of a strict intelligence quotient (IQ) cutoff to determine eligibility for critical services.

The plaintiffs have all been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and need significant support to live safely and independently, including help with daily tasks, transportation, employment and participating in community life, according to a news release distributed by Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the Center for Children’s Advocacy, and attorney Andrew Feinstein.

Despite those diagnoses and real-world needs, the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services (DDS) denied their eligibility because at least one IQ test score exceeded the state’s arbitrary numerical threshold, they point out.

The plaintiffs—Andrew Baylis, Daynasha Bohannon, Carriella Borchetta and Alexander Capuano—filed a lawsuit this past week in Connecticut’s Superior Court, in which they are represented by Connecticut firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, the Center for Children’s Advocacy, and attorney Andrew Feinstein.

Connecticut is one of only three states that continues to mandate and exclusively rely on a strict IQ threshold to determine eligibility for intellectual-disability services, they note. The overwhelming majority of states instead treat IQ as just one factor among several, consistent with the approach frequently used by clinicians and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

“We all want our kids to be able to live their fullest lives,” said Kelly Capuano, Alex’s mother. “Alex wants to work and loves bowling, but he needs practical support with things like employment and transportation. We are not asking for the sun and the moon—just a few concrete services that will help him live safely and build as much independence as possible.”

The complaint argues that Connecticut law, both on its face and as applied by DDS, violates both federal and state due process and equal protection guarantees. It seeks to prevent the state from using a rigid IQ cutoff as the basis for denying services and to reverse the plaintiffs’ eligibility denials.

“Connecticut has failed to administer this system fairly, relying on a rigid IQ cutoff that has denied critical support and caused lasting harm,” said Luke Reynolds, attorney at Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder. “This lawsuit seeks to hold the state accountable, force necessary change and put an end to an arbitrary and unconstitutional system. I’m proud to stand with these families as they fight for the support their children need and the justice they deserve.”

The complaint also argues that IQ scores are inherently imprecise and can be affected by factors including an individual’s mental state, the testing environment and how an exam is administered. It notes that modern clinical standards consider IQ as one part of a broader assessment that includes adaptive functioning and daily living skills.

“When the state denies a young person the support they need, the entire family carries the burden,” said Jennifer Wheeler of the Center for Children’s Advocacy. “These families know their children best, and their voices –and the full reality of their children’s needs –must be recognized. This case is about ensuring that young people with disabilities are not shut out of the services that help them live safely and participate fully in their communities.”

The four plaintiffs reportedly have long histories of intellectual disabilities that affect their ability to manage everyday life independently. Andrew depends on his parents for most daily tasks and requires constant supervision; Daynasha cannot be left home alone or travel independently and is cared for by her 83-year-old adoptive mother and sister; Carriella is unable to live independently and requires help with basic tasks like preparing food; and Alex cannot safely travel alone, while his mother—his primary caregiver—has suffered a stroke and can no longer drive. Without DDS eligibility, they have been denied case management and other services intended to support their safety and independence.

“Connecticut’s services for adults with disabilities are grossly underfunded,” said Andrew Feinstein of Feinstein Education Law Group. “To hold down the caseload, the state has adopted a primitive and irrational test to reduce the number of individuals eligible for services. A civil society requires that we take care of our fellow citizens with needs. Connecticut has failed to meet its responsibility.”

The lawsuit seeks a declaration that the statutory IQ requirement is unconstitutional and unenforceable, an injunction preventing DDS from denying services on that basis, reversal of the plaintiffs’ eligibility denials and a determination that each plaintiff qualifies for DDS services.