Final Jury Instructions, at 38-39 (Def.’s Opp., Ex. I). The first quoted paragraph of the instruction is based on the fundamental principle that, a claim accrues under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA based on the discovery rule applied in discrimination cases generally — that is, “when the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the injury serving as the basis for his claim.” Stewart, 2006 WL 626921, at *3; see also Fox v. DeSoto, 489 F.3d 227, 233 (6th Cir.2007) (“Under federal law, the limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff knew or should have known of the injury that forms the basis of the claim.”); Everett, 138 F.3d at 1410 (concluding that claims of disability discrimination accrue “when the plaintiff is informed of the discriminatory act”); Soignier, 92 F.3d at 551 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in original). Plaintiff does not
holding that the statute of limitations begins to run under federal law when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injury which forms the basis of their claims 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 holding that the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the alleged malpractice is discovered holding that georgias statute of limitations for personal injury actions should be applied to discrimination claims brought under the rehabilitation act and title ii of the ada holding that the statute of limitations period begins to run when the allegedly discriminatory pension plan is applied to the plaintiffs and leaving determination of the actual date the statute begins to run on each claim to the district court