Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Deaf Woman’s Emotional Distress Suit

July 6, 2021 by Tom Ramstack
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Deaf Woman’s Emotional Distress Suit
The Conference Room of the U.S. Supreme Court. (Courtesy the U.S. Supreme Court)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court plans to hear a case in its next term that could expand rights of discrimination victims to collect compensation for “emotional distress.”

A ruling that allows the compensation could widely broaden the liability for discrimination, potentially allowing anyone victimized by unfair treatment because of their race, age, disability, religion, national origin or sexual orientation to get money if they’re upset.

The case involves a deaf woman who was not offered an American Sign Language interpreter when she sought medical care at a Fort Worth, Texas clinic. 

Her case was thrown out by two lower courts because she was unable to prove in her private lawsuit the kinds of damages that normally establish a civil rights violation. They include physical injury, property damage or loss of income. 

Now, however, a reversal of the ruling has support from the Biden administration.

The woman, Jane Cummings, went to Premier Rehab Keller PLLC to be treated for chronic back pain. She asked the clinic to hire an interpreter of sign language, which is her only means of communicating.

Instead, staff members said she should use lip-reading, written notes or gesturing. If she wanted an interpreter, they said she should hire her own.

The clinic receives federal funding through Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, which Cummings said meant it must comply with federal civil rights law.

She filed her lawsuit under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It says, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

Subsequent case law has expanded the class of persons protected under the law to include disability, religion, age and others.

Unlike most other civil rights laws, it allows victims to be compensated for emotional distress.

The U.S. District Court ruled Cummings lacked a right to sue because her case represented a novel situation that left health clinics with no way of knowing they could be liable for her emotional distress. Her lawsuit was based entirely on a claim of emotional distress.

If anyone were to sue the clinic, it would have to come from a government agency, not a private individual, the court ruled.

The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Louisiana upheld the ruling.

Her attorney argued that the ruling defeats the purpose behind the civil rights law because it would leave many people with no right to sue.

The Biden administration agreed with Cummings’ attorney. Acting Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar suggested that the Supreme Court review the case, which appears to have influenced its announcement on Friday to grant the lawsuit a hearing.

“The court of appeals’ decision will undermine the ability of both private parties and the federal government to enforce … anti-discrimination protections,” Prelogar wrote in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court.

Rulings in other federal courts demonstrate a patchwork of decisions in similar cases, meaning it is ripe for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue.

Several civil rights groups filed amicus briefs in the case, including the AARP and the Texas conference of the NAACP. Both of them support Cummings.

“Discrimination can sometimes cause economic injury — but in many cases the primary injury is pain and suffering, or other forms of mental or emotional harm,” the NAACP brief said.

The case is Jane Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller PLLC, number 20-219, in the U.S. Supreme Court.

A+
a-
  • emotional distress
  • interpreter
  • sign language
  • Supreme Court
  • In The News

    Health

    Voting

    Supreme Court

    Five Takeaways From the Abortion Pill Case Before US Supreme Court

    WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday did not appear ready to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone,... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday did not appear ready to limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone, in a case that could have far-reaching implications for millions of American women and for scores of drugs regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. It's... Read More

    March 26, 2024
    by Tom Ramstack
    Supreme Court Skeptical of Ban on Abortion Pill Mifepristone

    WASHINGTON — A hearing Tuesday before the Supreme Court indicated a majority of the justices want to maintain women’s access... Read More

    WASHINGTON — A hearing Tuesday before the Supreme Court indicated a majority of the justices want to maintain women’s access to the abortion pill mifepristone despite objections from anti-abortion activists. The doctors and organizations who sued argued the Food and Drug Administration was wrong in granting... Read More

    March 19, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Supreme Court Gives Texas Green Light to Deport Illegal Immigrants

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to begin enforcing a state law that effectively allows officials... Read More

    WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed Texas to begin enforcing a state law that effectively allows officials to deport undocumented immigrants, despite objections from the Biden administration, which argued only the federal government has authority over immigration issues. In an unsigned order, the... Read More

    A Supreme Court Ruling in a Social Media Case Could Set Standards for Free Speech in the Digital Age

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme... Read More

    WASHINGTON (AP) — In a busy term that could set standards for free speech in the digital age, the Supreme Court on Monday is taking up a dispute between Republican-led states and the Biden administration over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social... Read More

    March 4, 2024
    by Dan McCue
    Justices Rule Trump Can Stay on Colorado Ballot

    WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump may remain on Colorado’s... Read More

    WASHINGTON — In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that former President Donald Trump may remain on Colorado’s primary ballot, rejecting a challenge to his eligibility based on a section of the 14th Amendment that bars those who have “engaged in insurrection” from holding... Read More

    About as Many Abortions Happening in US Monthly as Before Roe Was Overturned, Report Finds

    The number of abortions performed each month is about the same as before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and... Read More

    The number of abortions performed each month is about the same as before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and the nationwide right to abortion more than a year and a half ago, a new report finds. The latest edition of the #WeCount report conducted for... Read More

    News From The Well
    scroll top