The Supreme Court just ruled that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions to enforce certain federal antidiscrimination laws. Federal contractors should be aware of the Court's decision and how it could affect future discrimination lawsuits.
Jane Cummings is deaf and legally blind. She communicates primarily in American Sign Language (ASL). In October 2016, Cummings sought physical therapy services from Premier Rehab. Cummings requested that Premier Rehab provide an ASL interpreter at her appointments. Premier Rehab declined to do so.
Cummings sued Premier Rehab, alleging that the failure to provide an interpreter constituted disability discrimination in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Northern District of Texas dismissed her claims, finding that Cummings' only compensable injuries were for humiliation, frustration and emotional distress. Particularly, the district court held that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions brought to enforce the Rehabilitation Act or ACA. The Fifth Circuit affirmed (Judges Stewart, Clement & Ho), and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court agreed, primarily relying on Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002). In Barnes, the Court tackled whether punitive damages are recoverable under the same statutes. The Court observed that legislation enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution is in the nature of contract. That is, in return for federal funds, recipients agree to comply with federally imposed conditions. And because punitive damages are not usually or generally recoverable under breach of contract, recipients aren't on notice (before entering into "contract" with Congress) that they may be liable for punitive damages for intentionally discriminating against a person.
That logic followed in Cummings. The Court, Chief Justice Roberts writing, ruled that emotional distress damages, like punitive damages, are the exception in breach of contract, not the general rule. Consequently, recipients of federal funds, like Premier Rehab, aren't on notice that they may be liable for emotional distress damages for violating the Rehabilitation Act or ACA.
Justice Kavanaugh concurred, joined by Justice Gorsuch. To Kavanaugh, the contract-law analogy was imperfect. He instead highlighted risks of judicial extension, noting that Congress, not the Court, should expand on the available remedies. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. He argued that emotional distress damages were traditionally available in contract cases, especially when the breach was likely to result in serious emotional disturbance. Breyer further cautioned that the Court's ruling would affect the remedies available to plaintiffs traveling under Title VI and Title IX—which also bar recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of certain protected characteristics.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
