Emotional Damages Are Not Enough for Title IX

Posted by Joseph D. Lento | Jun 10, 2022 | 0 Comments

In 2022, the Supreme Court delivered their decision on Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. In this case, the plaintiff, Jane Cummings, had signed up for physical therapy services from Premier Rehab Keller. Cummings requested Premier Rehab provide an ASL interpreter for her sessions because she is legally blind and deaf. Premier Rehab declined the request and told Cummings that the physical therapist could communicate with her in other ways.

Cummings filed a lawsuit against Premier Rehab for failing to provide an ASL interpreter, which she believed was an act of discrimination based on her disabilities, and consequently violating the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act. Premier Rehab is required to abide by these federal statutes because it receives federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid. In addition, Cummings requested emotional damages because of the distress she allegedly suffered from not having an interpreter during her physical therapy sessions.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The District Court determined that damages for emotional distress cannot be recovered in private actions when they are brought to enforce these anti-discrimination statutes. The Fifth Circuit affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of both courts, stating that damages for emotional distress cannot be recouped under these Spending Clause anti-discrimination statuses.

The Supreme Court has stated in the past that Spending Clause statutes, including Title IX, may allow for recovery based on emotional distress, but it depends on how a particular statute functions. The Government and the federally funded beneficiary (the clinic) create a contract when the Government promises to give them federal funding in exchange of promising not to discriminate. It is the same with Title IX-- schools receive federal funding in return for agreeing to comply with the Title IX rules, which also outlaw discrimination. Congress's power to create such a law is determined by whether the federally funded beneficiary voluntarily and knowingly accepted the contract's terms.

This framework applies to both the scope of conduct that these beneficiaries might be liable for if they violate the anti-discriminatory requirement and the specific remedies available in private Spending Clause actions. As such, certain remedies are only available in Spending Clause actions if the beneficiary is on notice that they are exposing themselves to liability by accepting the federal funding.

Further, the Court determined that, based on this framework, the types of liabilities most beneficiaries were on notice for are based on contract law, and under contract law, emotional distress is not usually something that can be recouped. Because of this, the Court stated that it cannot treat beneficiaries of federal funding as having consented to being liable for emotion distress damages when they accepted the funding, and thus emotional damages are not recoverable.

How an Attorney Advisor Can Help

Even though the Cummings case was based on the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act, the analysis the Court used would be the same one used in a Title IX issue that involved emotional distress. Title IX beneficiaries would have no clear notice that they could be held liable for emotional distress in private actions.

Attorney Joseph D. Lento and Lento Law Firm have been working tirelessly to protect students, faculty, and others in academia accused of Title IX violations and otherwise subject to what can often be unfair school proceeding and actions. They have years of experience and will ensure your due process rights are upheld at the school level and in court when necessary throughout the United States.

Call 888-535-3686 today to schedule a consultation or contact us online. Attorney Lento and the Lento Law Firm can help.

About the Author

Joseph D. Lento

"I pride myself on having heart and driving hard to get results!" Attorney Joseph D. Lento passionately fights for the futures of his clients nationwide. Attorney Lento and his team represent students and others in disciplinary cases and various other proceedings at colleges and universities across the United States. Attorney Lento has helped countless students, professors, and others in academia at more than a thousand colleges and universities across the United States, and when necessary, he and his team have sought justice on behalf of clients in courts across the nation. He does not settle for the easiest outcome, and instead prioritizes his clients' needs and well-being. Joseph D. Lento is licensed in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, is admitted pro hac vice as needed nationwide, and he can help you or your student address any school-related issue or concern anywhere in the United States.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Contact Us Today!


If you, or your student, are facing any kind of disciplinary action, or other negative academic sanction, and are having feelings of uncertainty and anxiety for what the future may hold, contact the Lento Law Firm today, and let us help secure your academic career.

This website was created only for general information purposes. It is not intended to be construed as legal advice for any situation. Only a direct consultation with a licensed Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York attorney can provide you with formal legal counsel based on the unique details surrounding your situation. The pages on this website may contain links and contact information for third party organizations - the Lento Law Firm does not necessarily endorse these organizations nor the materials contained on their website. In Pennsylvania, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout Pennsylvania's 67 counties, including, but not limited to Philadelphia, Allegheny, Berks, Bucks, Carbon, Chester, Dauphin, Delaware, Lancaster, Lehigh, Monroe, Montgomery, Northampton, Schuylkill, and York County. In New Jersey, attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New Jersey's 21 counties: Atlantic, Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Hudson, Hunterdon, Mercer, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Ocean, Passaic, Salem, Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren County, In New York, Attorney Joseph D. Lento represents clients throughout New York's 62 counties. Outside of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, unless attorney Joseph D. Lento is admitted pro hac vice if needed, his assistance may not constitute legal advice or the practice of law. The decision to hire an attorney in Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania counties, New Jersey, New York, or nationwide should not be made solely on the strength of an advertisement. We invite you to contact the Lento Law Firm directly to inquire about our specific qualifications and experience. Communicating with the Lento Law Firm by email, phone, or fax does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Lento Law Firm will serve as your official legal counsel upon a formal agreement from both parties. Any information sent to the Lento Law Firm before an attorney-client relationship is made is done on a non-confidential basis.