The article Supreme Court says no to damages for “emotional distress” in civil rights case contains information that reveals the circumstances of Jane Cummings’ lawsuit against the rehab clinic where she applied for help. The woman was disabled (deaf and blind) and requested a sign language interpreter, but she was denied. Cummings did not find the alternatives offered to her satisfactory, and in August 2018, she sued the clinic. The claim was for damages for emotional distress, which was not granted by the trial court or the appellate court. According to the court, damages for emotional distress are not recoverable in private lawsuits brought only to comply with disability laws (Perry, 2022). The article reveals the specifics of the federal anti-discrimination law and funding conditions and records that Premier Rehab received no notice of potential liability for this type of harm. The article concludes with the judges’ opinions on who participated in the process.
This article interested me because the president’s administration is currently working on a new format for Title IX of the Constitution. The expectation is that once the amendments are passed, there will be a presumption of guilt for the accused, meaning that due process of law will be eliminated. The case I described expresses that the anti-discrimination laws are not yet fully working in the correct order. What I mean by that is that the court cannot fully protect citizens in cases of emotional distress because the claims being considered are often not legitimate. I agree with the court’s decision in the Cummings case because Premier Rehab offered alternatives, and the plaintiff refused. In addition, the appeal to the court was already after receiving services at another clinic, which also raises the question of Cummings’ reasons for her behavior.
References
Perry, S. P. (2022). Supreme Court says no to damages for “emotional distress” in civil rights case. Here’s why that’s good news. The Heritage Foundation.