Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)

Citation
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Parent Document
A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Effective Date
2011-08-24

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text

721 chars
In contrast, I find no allegation of a discrete discriminatory
act by Homeward less than one year before the complaint was
filed. Therefore, I agree that the ADA claim against Home-
ward is time-barred. I also agree with the dismissal of all
claims against the Doe(s) defendants because I find no plausi-
ble allegation of any discriminatory act by them after 1996.
The only act plausibly alleged against Doe(s) is an offer to
contribute $2 million toward the construction of a facility for
homeless persons on Oliver Hill Way in "late 1995 or early
1996." Joint Appendix at 282. Absent some discrete act during
the limitations period, no continuing violation has been
alleged against Doe(s). Glendening, 174 F.3d at 189.