Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. is a very important case for employment and benefits practitioners. The Court, divided 6-3 along conservative/liberal lines, has held that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act. In fact, the case affects potential results under four statutes that Congress has enacted pursuant to its Spending Clause authority that prohibit recipients of federal funds from discriminating with respect to matters including race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U. S. C. §2000d; Education Amendments Act of 1972, Title IX, 20 U. S. C. §1681; Rehabilitation Act of 1973, §504, 29 U. S. C. §794; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), §1557, 42 U. S. C. §18116. The Court previously held that victims of intentional violations of these statutes may bring private lawsuits seeking to recover, among other things, compensatory damages. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 76 (1992). Today, the Court holds that the damages available under these statutes cannot include compensation for emotional suffering.
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: "The Court Upholds Obamacare, Yet Again, Takes a Broad View of Free Exercise and a Narrow View of Alien Tort Claims."
The following is an excerpt:
It is a commonplace that the decisions that are not published until the end of a Supreme Court term tend to be the ones presenting major public issues that sharply divide the Court.
At least two of the three cases in which opinions issued today, California v. Texas, involving the latest challenge to the ...
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: "A Placid Beginning to the Last Month of the Term."
The following is an excerpt:
This morning begins what many are anticipating to be an exciting last month of the 2020 term. Among other things, we expect to find out about the continued viability of the Affordable Care Act, and several First Amendment matters, including the extent to which religious expression trumps antidiscrimination laws, and the ability of a school to sanction off-campus speech. These ...
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: A Hint About the Future of the Affordable Care Act.
The following is an excerpt:
There were no opinions delivered today, only very heated and important argument in the consolidated cases of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee.
These cases concern whether two of Arizona’s voting policies—one prohibiting counting provisional ballots cast on election day outside of a ...
Our colleague Stuart Gerson of Epstein Becker Green has a new post on SCOTUS Today that will be of interest to our readers: Biden DOJ No Longer Argues That the ACA Is Unconstitutional
The following is an excerpt:
While the Supreme Court is in recess this week, and public attention is drawn to the trial of Donald Trump in the Senate, there is one event at the Court that is worthy of attention, particularly by those who counsel clients in the health care space. In a letter to the Court, the Biden Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has reversed the position that the previous administration had ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Navigating Regulatory Challenges in the Dietary Supplement Industry: Insights on NJ Assembly Bill No. 1848
- Quashing an Out-of-State Subpoena: No Easy Task
- The Sleeping Giant: New York’s Commercial Division Expert Disclosure Rules
- Commission Commitments: Massachusetts Appeals Court Upholds Obligation to Continue Paying Commission for the Life of the Underlying Customer Relationship
- A Win for Out-of-Network Providers