Lawsuit Challenges Connecticut Department of Developmental Services Over Strict IQ Cutoff Rules for Disability Support

Families and disability advocates in Connecticut are sounding the alarm over what they describe as an arbitrary and outdated bureaucratic barrier preventing vulnerable young adults from accessing critical state-funded services. A newly filed federal and state civil lawsuit targets the Connecticut Department of Developmental Services (DDS) and Commissioner Elisa Velardo, challenging the agency’s strict reliance on a rigid intelligence quotient (IQ) score cutoff to determine eligibility for lifelong support programs.

The lawsuit, brought forward by the Bridgeport-based law firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, centers on four young adult plaintiffs—including 19-year-old Alex Capuano of Fairfield, 23-year-old Andrew Baylis of Darien, 18-year-old Daynasha Bohannon of Bridgeport, and 20-year-old Carriella Borchetta of Trumbull. Each of these individuals has received professional, clinical diagnoses of intellectual disabilities backed by comprehensive psychological evaluations. Yet, because individual components of their testing records or specific historical scores registered an intelligence quotient above the threshold of 70, DDS officials deemed them entirely ineligible for adult developmental services.

This policy has left families grappling with a sudden cliff in state support just as these young adults age out of the educational system. Legal experts, advocacy organizations, and impacted parents argue that the state’s inflexible methodology contradicts modern clinical standards, violates constitutional protections, and places an unsustainable burden on aging family caregivers.

The Human Toll: Navigating the Post-Age 22 Cliff

For Kelly Capuano of Fairfield, the daily reality is defined by a ticking clock and deep uncertainty. Her son Alex, a charismatic 19-year-old known for his outgoing personality, warmth, and passion for bowling, lives with significant intellectual and developmental challenges. While Alex successfully navigated his school years with specialized educational plans and accommodations, those protective institutional frameworks have an expiration date. In Connecticut, public school entitlements and special education services conclude when a youth turns 22.

Under the current operational framework of the Department of Developmental Services, individuals must secure agency eligibility to bridge this gap. Eligibility acts as the gateway to a wide spectrum of essential resources, ranging from high-level supported housing and community integration programs to specialized job coaching and transportation assistance. When Alex applied for these foundational services, the state agency rejected his application, pointing to a strict statutory interpretation tied to standardized intelligence testing.

Capuano’s anxiety was compounded by a sudden, severe health crisis that impacted her mobility and forced her to stop driving. Because Alex can no longer rely on his mother for transportation, he was forced to drop out of his community bowling league—an activity where he previously thrived, having spent three years on his high school bowling team.

"Alex really does touch everybody he comes into contact with; it’s just his personality," Capuano said. However, her sudden health emergency brought her own mortality sharply into focus. "It really is the crux of the issue," she explained, noting that without state intervention, the entire weight of caregiving falls squarely on families. "At some point, who is going to take care of Alex and allow him to go after all of his dreams?"

Legal Arguments and Constitutional Claims

The core of the lawsuit filed by Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder takes direct aim at the constitutionality and scientific validity of the state’s screening mechanism. According to the legal complaint, all four plaintiffs possess concurrent low IQ scores and severe adaptive behavioral deficiencies that explicitly meet the diagnostic criteria for an intellectual disability outlined in professional medical manuals. However, because one or more historical scores within their testing files rose above a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) of 70, the agency summarily stripped them of any administrative recourse or eligibility pathway.

Attorney Luke Reynolds of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder characterized the policy as an "unconstitutional bureaucratic gap" that actively bars citizens from accessing resources explicitly designed to help them thrive. The lawsuit asserts that this administrative hurdle violates multiple provisions of foundational law, including:

• The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
• Article I, Section 8 of the Connecticut Constitution, which protects against the deprivation of property without due process of law.
• Article I, Section 20 of the Connecticut Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law for individuals with physical or mental disabilities.

The complaint emphasizes that by utilizing a strict numeric cutoff, DDS unreasonably and arbitrarily deprives eligible residents of their property interests in essential state benefits. State statutes explicitly mandate that the Department of Developmental Services is responsible for providing "complete, comprehensive and integrated state-wide services for persons with intellectual disability." Plaintiffs argue that the agency is failing in this statutory mission by shrinking its recipient pool through artificial statistical filters.

A National Outlier: Outdated Metrics Versus Modern Clinical Standards

The controversy highlights a stark divergence between Connecticut’s statutory definitions and contemporary psychological science. According to legal briefs and supporting statements from advocacy groups, Connecticut stands as one of only three states in the nation that continues to define intellectual disability by exclusively relying on a rigid, hard-and-fast IQ score cutoff to determine service eligibility.

By contrast, 47 other states have modernised their eligibility processes to align with the guidance of medical experts, licensed clinicians, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Under these modern clinical approaches, a specific IQ score is viewed as merely one contextual data point among many, rather than an absolute gatekeeper. A comprehensive assessment must also evaluate adaptive functioning—how well an individual handles everyday practical, social, and conceptual skills necessary for daily living.

Andrew Feinstein of the Feinstein Education Law Group noted that the rigid application of state rules creates a disastrous endpoint for youths aging out of the public school system at age 22. "They reach that point and it’s the end of the road," Feinstein said. He emphasized that these individuals possess valuable skills and a strong desire to contribute, making their systemic exclusion a profound loss for society as a whole.

Jennifer Wheeler of the Center for Children’s Advocacy echoed these concerns, stating that the state’s methodology reduces complex human beings to a single, arbitrary number. "Connecticut knows they have to make this change," Wheeler said. "In the meantime the costs are real; our plaintiffs are bearing the cost." Sarah Mervine, also of the Center for Children’s Advocacy, pointed out that critical opportunities—such as specialized employment programs—are functionally locked behind DDS eligibility, leaving qualified individuals stranded without pathways to independence.

Case Profiles Illustrating Systemic Gaps

The court documents detail the profound daily challenges faced by the individual plaintiffs, underscoring the gap between their documented needs and the state’s denials.

One plaintiff, who relies entirely on parents for full-time care, supervision, and case management, suffers from profound adaptive deficiencies that have persisted since birth. Due to these developmental limitations, the individual cannot live independently, navigate public spaces safely, cook meals without supervision, make healthful dietary decisions, or handle independent financial tasks. Despite these glaring indicators of need, DDS denied services multiple times. Following an administrative hearing in 2025, a DDS hearing officer acknowledged that while the applicant recorded some IQ scores below 69, other scores indicated a higher level of functioning, ultimately ruling her ineligible under the strict letter of state law.

Another plaintiff faces similar barriers, demonstrating severe deficits in communication and social comprehension. While outgoing, the individual struggles to process social nuances and requires ongoing job coaching and conversational facilitation to succeed in workplace environments. Because the state agency relies exclusively on fractional test scores rather than holistic adaptive evaluations, these residents remain locked out of the very support networks established by the legislature to foster community integration.

Official Response and Fiscal Context

Representatives for the Department of Developmental Services have declined to offer direct comments regarding ongoing litigation. Instead, agency officials have pointed public inquiries toward state fiscal documents outlining the agency’s operational scope and budgetary commitments.

State financial disclosures indicate that the Department of Developmental Services operates with a substantial budget, with allocations projected at approximately $1.63 billion for Fiscal Year 2027. Furthermore, state records demonstrate that the vast majority of clients currently receiving DDS services reside within a "family home" environment, receiving support structures tailored to keep them integrated within their local communities rather than institutionalized facilities.

Despite these significant financial allocations, advocacy groups and legal teams argue that the agency’s rigid screening protocols artificially cap enrollment, leaving families to shoulder the overwhelming emotional and financial responsibilities of lifelong care without state partnership.

Broader Implications for Connecticut Families

The outcome of the civil lawsuit could trigger profound ripple effects across Connecticut’s health and human services landscape. Legal analysts note that if the plaintiffs prevail, the ruling could secure immediate injunctive relief, compelling the state to overhaul its eligibility screening methodology.

Such a structural shift would not only rectify the standing of the individual plaintiffs but could also open reapplication pathways for hundreds, if not thousands, of Connecticut residents and their families who were previously turned away by the system’s strict numerical thresholds.

For parents like Kelly Capuano, the litigation represents more than a legal dispute; it is a vital fight for dignity, inclusion, and the fundamental right of their children to pursue independence safely. As the case moves through the judicial system, the spotlight remains firmly on Connecticut policymakers to determine whether the state will adapt its policies to reflect modern medical consensus and ensure that no vulnerable resident is left behind by arbitrary bureaucratic barriers.