The US Supreme Court Thursday ruled Thursday that damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in a private lawsuit to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. This decision clarifies what damages are available to individuals who sue under federal anti-discrimination statutes.
Plaintiff Jane Cummings is legally blind and was born deaf. Cummings primarily communicates through American Sign Language. In 2016, she contacted Premier Rehab, a physical therapy provider, to treat her chronic back pain. She requested an ASL interpreter for her therapy sessions, but Premier refused and informed Cummings that she could communicate with the therapist using written notes, gesturing, lip-reading, or she could bring her own interpreter. Cummings then filed a lawsuit against Premier for discrimination on the basis of her disability, alleging that the company violated federal anti-discrimination laws when refusing to provide her with an interpreter. Cummings sought equitable relief and compensatory damages for emotional distress.
Premier is subject to the ACA and the Rehabilitation Act’s non-discrimination provisions because it sometimes receives federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid. To be eligible for these reimbursements, providers must comply with federal anti-discrimination laws. In similar cases, the court “has regularly applied [a] contract-law analogy to define the scope of conduct for which funding recipients may be held liable, with an eye toward ensuring that recipients had notice of their obligations.”
In Thursday’s decision, Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, held that emotional distress damages are not traditionally available in suits for breach of contract, so these remedies are not available because Premier and other providers would not have the requisite notice.
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented, arguing that Premier did have notice because emotional distress damages are often available when a contractual breach was particularly likely to result in serious emotional disturbance. The dissenters said that providers who receive federal funding know they are subject to the ACA and Rehabilitation Act’s provisions against invidious discrimination, and because such discrimination is especially prone to cause serious emotional disturbance, Premier should have anticipated potential liability for emotional distress damages.
