Discrimination Cases and Emotional Distress Damages: Implications of Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

Description

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions to enforce statutes authorized by the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Statutes authorized by the Spending Clause include:

• Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability
• Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination and harassment at educational institutions
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in educational institutions
• Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which prohibits healthcare entities from discriminating based on race, sex, disability, or age

The Court held that the Spending Clause, which conditions receipt of federal funds on compliance with the statute, does not permit recovery of emotional distress damages because an emotional injury is not generally recoverable for breach of contract.

This ruling will be significant for colleges, universities, school districts, charter schools, and healthcare providers, most of whom are federal funding recipients. Students and patients can no longer recover emotional distress damages under these statutes, which historically have been a substantial portion of the damages sought in such actions.

While the decision is limited to Spending Clause antidiscrimination statutes, employment attorneys must consider the effect of this case, and future decisions, on discrimination claims.

Listen as our expert panel discusses the ramifications of the Cummings decision and best practices for pursuing discrimination claims under this new framework.