We collect cookies to analyze our website traffic and performance; we never collect any personal data. Cookie Policy
Accept
NEW YORK DAWN™NEW YORK DAWN™NEW YORK DAWN™
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
  • Home
  • Trending
  • New York
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
    • Business
    • Economy
    • Real Estate
  • Crypto & NFTs
  • Tech
  • Lifestyle
    • Lifestyle
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Fashion
    • Art
  • Health
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
Reading: Supreme Court Bans Recovery for Emotional Harm in Discrimination Suits
Share
Font ResizerAa
NEW YORK DAWN™NEW YORK DAWN™
Search
  • Home
  • Trending
  • New York
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
    • Business
    • Economy
    • Real Estate
  • Crypto & NFTs
  • Tech
  • Lifestyle
    • Lifestyle
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Fashion
    • Art
  • Health
  • Sports
  • Entertainment
Follow US
NEW YORK DAWN™ > Blog > Politics > Supreme Court Bans Recovery for Emotional Harm in Discrimination Suits
Supreme Court Bans Recovery for Emotional Harm in Discrimination Suits
Politics

Supreme Court Bans Recovery for Emotional Harm in Discrimination Suits

Last updated: April 28, 2022 5:12 pm
Editorial Board Published April 28, 2022
Share
SHARE
merlin 205408299 5b50afca 6f8f 41ae 986a c48509fe5c3a facebookJumbo

WASHINGTON — Dividing 6 to 3 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that victims of discrimination that is forbidden by four federal statutes may not sue if the only harm was emotional distress.

The case concerned Jane Cummings, a Texas woman who is deaf and communicates primarily in American Sign Language. In 2016, she sought treatment for chronic back pain at Premier Rehab Keller, a physical therapy facility in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, asking it to provide a sign language interpreter at her appointments.

The facility refused, saying Ms. Cummings could communicate with her therapist using notes, lip reading or gestures. She sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act, both of which ban facilities receiving federal funds — as Premier Rehab Keller had — from discriminating on the basis of disability.

A federal judge found that the only injuries Ms. Cummings had suffered were “humiliation, frustration and emotional distress” and ruled that the laws she invoked did not allow suits for such emotional harm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed that ruling.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority on Thursday, said the laws at issue are something like contracts: In exchange for federal money, businesses agree not to discriminate and to be held accountable if they do. This was also true, he wrote, of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin, and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bars discrimination based on sex.

People suing for breach of contract, Chief Justice Roberts continued, generally cannot recover damages for emotional harm caused by the breach. By analogy, he wrote, people suing businesses that accept federal money cannot win such damages, either.

“After all,” the chief justice wrote, “when considering whether to accept federal funds, a prospective recipient would surely wonder not only what rules it must follow, but also what sort of penalties might be on the table.”

The Supreme Court used similar reasoning in 2002 in Barnes v. Gorman, ruling that such federal laws did not allow suits for punitive damages because those kinds of damages were not typically available in lawsuits for breach of contract.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the majority opinion.

In dissent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that the chief justice had asked the right question but given the wrong answer. Some sorts of contracts, he wrote, can give rise to suits for emotional harm.

“Does breach of a promise not to discriminate fall into this category?” he wrote. “I should think so.”

“The statutes before us seek to eradicate invidious discrimination,” he wrote. “That purpose is clearly nonpecuniary. And discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability is particularly likely to cause serious emotional harm.”

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Justice Breyer’s dissent in the case, Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, No. 20-219.

Quoting an earlier opinion, Justice Breyer added that the majority had lost sight of the larger purpose of the anti-discrimination laws, which was “to vindicate ‘human dignity and not mere economics.’”

“But the court’s decision today allows victims of discrimination to recover damages only if they can prove that they have suffered economic harm, even though the primary harm inflicted by discrimination is rarely economic,” Justice Breyer wrote. “Indeed, victims of intentional discrimination may sometimes suffer profound emotional injury without any attendant pecuniary harms. The court’s decision today will leave those victims with no remedy at all.”

You Might Also Like

FAA nominee reportedly lacks business pilot certification he claimed to have

LEONARD GREENE: ‘No Kings’ protesters rain on Trump’s navy parade

The Military is ready to rejoice 250 years with a parade that coincides with Trump’s birthday

Marines are seen standing guard at a federal constructing in Los Angeles

5 key takeaways from the ultimate NYC mayoral debate

TAGGED:Appeals Courts (US)Compensation for Damages (Law)Decisions and VerdictsDiscriminationSupreme Court (US)TexasThe Washington MailUnited States Politics and Government
Share This Article
Facebook Twitter Email Print

Follow US

Find US on Social Medias
FacebookLike
TwitterFollow
YoutubeSubscribe
TelegramFollow
Popular News
Potential epigenetic biomarker discovered for preeclampsia in being pregnant
Health

Potential epigenetic biomarker discovered for preeclampsia in being pregnant

Editorial Board December 5, 2024
Sorokin makes 38 saves as Islanders snap a 4-game skid with 2-1 win over Bruins
3 keys to a Giants win over Cowboys on Thanksgiving Day
Ken Starr, Independent Counsel in Clinton Investigation, Dies at 76
My Partner Wants to Move His Parents Into Our House. Help!

You Might Also Like

Brooklyn BP Antonio Reynoso has taken money from actual property pursuits regardless of pledge
Politics

Brooklyn BP Antonio Reynoso has taken money from actual property pursuits regardless of pledge

June 13, 2025
Mamdani, Lander cross-endorse one another for NYC mayor in bid to dam Cuomo
Politics

Mamdani, Lander cross-endorse one another for NYC mayor in bid to dam Cuomo

June 13, 2025
Trump orders Medicaid to share information of suspected undocumented immigrants
Politics

Trump orders Medicaid to share information of suspected undocumented immigrants

June 13, 2025
Trump backs Israel after sweeping assault on Iran
Politics

Trump backs Israel after sweeping assault on Iran

June 13, 2025

Categories

  • Health
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Entertainment
  • Technology
  • World
  • Art

About US

New York Dawn is a proud and integral publication of the Enspirers News Group, embodying the values of journalistic integrity and excellence.
Company
  • About Us
  • Newsroom Policies & Standards
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Careers
  • Media & Community Relations
  • Accessibility Statement
Contact Us
  • Contact Us
  • Contact Customer Care
  • Advertise
  • Licensing & Syndication
  • Request a Correction
  • Contact the Newsroom
  • Send a News Tip
  • Report a Vulnerability
Term of Use
  • Digital Products Terms of Sale
  • Terms of Service
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Settings
  • Submissions & Discussion Policy
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Ad Choices
© 2024 New York Dawn. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Lost your password?