Thu Apr 28, 2022, 07:24 PM
Polybius (10,188 posts)
Supreme Court Bans Recovery for Emotional Harm in Discrimination Suits
Source: NY Times
WASHINGTON — Dividing 6 to 3 along ideological lines, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that victims of discrimination that is forbidden by four federal statutes may not sue if the only harm was emotional distress. The case concerned Jane Cummings, a Texas woman who is deaf and communicates primarily in American Sign Language. In 2016, she sought treatment for chronic back pain at Premier Rehab Keller, a physical therapy facility in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, asking it to provide a sign language interpreter at her appointments. The facility refused, saying Ms. Cummings could communicate with her therapist using notes, lip reading or gestures. She sued under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act, both of which ban facilities receiving federal funds — as Premier Rehab Keller had — from discriminating on the basis of disability. A federal judge found that the only injuries Ms. Cummings had suffered were “humiliation, frustration and emotional distress” and ruled that the laws she invoked did not allow suits for such emotional harm. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed that ruling. Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/28/us/politics/supreme-court-discrimination-emotional-harm.html
|
13 replies, 2189 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Polybius | Apr 2022 | OP |
madaboutharry | Apr 2022 | #1 | |
abqtommy | Apr 2022 | #3 | |
LonePirate | Apr 2022 | #2 | |
bucolic_frolic | Apr 2022 | #4 | |
BWdem4life | Apr 2022 | #5 | |
cstanleytech | Apr 2022 | #6 | |
speak easy | Apr 2022 | #7 | |
mountain grammy | Apr 2022 | #9 | |
hueymahl | Apr 2022 | #8 | |
angrychair | Apr 2022 | #10 | |
hueymahl | Apr 2022 | #11 | |
Demovictory9 | Apr 2022 | #12 | |
I_have_a_cat_bite | May 2022 | #13 |
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Thu Apr 28, 2022, 07:26 PM
madaboutharry (38,472 posts)
1. "But her emails..."
😥
|
Response to madaboutharry (Reply #1)
Thu Apr 28, 2022, 07:47 PM
abqtommy (14,118 posts)
3. Don't forget Ben Gazarra...I mean Benghazi! Can we pack The Supreme Court now? nt
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Thu Apr 28, 2022, 07:46 PM
LonePirate (12,556 posts)
2. More proof that Republicans believe only the wealthy and fetuses deserve human dignity.
Discrimination regardless of what kind is almost always inflicts mental and emotional harm against another person. Sometimes it can be physical such as a hate crime but I suspect that is not the majority of discriminatory acts. This decision is exceptionally shameful and cruel.
|
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Thu Apr 28, 2022, 08:37 PM
bucolic_frolic (33,321 posts)
4. SCOTUS Republican majority determined to strip every bit of humanity from our legal system
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Thu Apr 28, 2022, 08:43 PM
BWdem4life (310 posts)
5. "Ideological lines"
Meaning, "Nice vs. mean"
|
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Thu Apr 28, 2022, 10:25 PM
cstanleytech (24,015 posts)
6. In a way I can kind of understand as you first need to prove you were actually harmed such as
being fired or being harassed.
Then after proving that you can then move on to the area of the emotional stress and trauma and if proven it should at the very least lead to x5 the amount awarded if not more. |
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Fri Apr 29, 2022, 07:23 AM
speak easy (5,475 posts)
7. 'Fuck Your Feelings'
Response to speak easy (Reply #7)
Fri Apr 29, 2022, 09:22 AM
mountain grammy (24,569 posts)
9. The GOP motto.
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Fri Apr 29, 2022, 08:23 AM
hueymahl (2,056 posts)
8. Its a complicated issue
The legal system has struggled with claims of emotional distress in claims based on both torts and statute. Generally, mere emotional distress, without a showing of actual harm (meaning some type of physical harm), is not compensable regardless of the underlying claim. Not saying this was the right decision, but just that it is a more complicated issue than partisanship, despite the court splitting on ideological lines.
|
Response to hueymahl (Reply #8)
Fri Apr 29, 2022, 04:31 PM
angrychair (7,402 posts)
10. That's a hell of a loophole
I can't see any situation that discrimination would cause physical harm.
When they say "emotional" are we including mental anguish or other mental health trauma? |
Response to angrychair (Reply #10)
Fri Apr 29, 2022, 07:29 PM
hueymahl (2,056 posts)
11. Yeah, and it's often unfair
Sometimes proof that you have been hospitalized or major psychological issues. Problem is proving what is pre-existing.
I understand the rationale, even if I don’t agree with it. |
Response to hueymahl (Reply #8)
Sat Apr 30, 2022, 07:08 PM
Demovictory9 (28,171 posts)
12. I recall POC getting arrested and STRIP SEARCHED over traffic fine or something minor
Class action settlement they got... seems to be that basing it emotional distress was appropriate. cops arrest you in error, you suffer emotional distress (if only emotional distress, you get nothing??}
|
Response to Polybius (Original post)
Sun May 1, 2022, 03:15 AM
I_have_a_cat_bite (38 posts)
13. but teachers....
...should be fired for making white kids sad for telling them the truth. And In Pensylvania, guess which party tried to make it illegal to hurt cops' feelings.
I'm calling it. Republicans are going to bring back blasphemy laws too. |