Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.

Jane Cummings, who is deaf and relies on American Sign Language, contacted Premier Rehab Keller for physical therapy and requested an ASL interpreter to communicate effectively. Premier Rehab refused, insisting she could lip-read or use written notes instead. Cummings felt humiliated and brought a lawsuit in federal district court, alleging disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act. She sought emotional distress damages, among other relief. The district court dismissed the claim for emotional distress damages, ruling that the statutes, enacted under Congress’s Spending Clause power, limit remedies to those available for breach of contract, which do not include such damages. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the availability of emotional distress damages under these anti-discrimination laws. On April 28, 2022, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court agreed with the lower courts, holding that because the relevant remedies are contract-based, emotional distress damages are not recoverable for intentional discrimination under these Spending Clause statutes. As a result, Cummings was barred from obtaining compensation for her emotional suffering.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that emotional distress damages are not available for intentional discrimination claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act or the Affordable Care Act, as these Spending Clause anti-discrimination statutes limit recovery to traditional contract remedies.

Whether the remedies available under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act's Section 1557, which incorporate the remedies of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, include compensation for emotional distress damages.

The decision significantly limits the remedies available to victims of disability discrimination and other civil rights violations under Spending Clause statutes, potentially discouraging individuals from pursuing claims when only emotional harm is suffered. Advocacy groups for persons with disabilities expressed concern that it weakens enforcement of anti-discrimination protections.