Jane Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.
948 F.3d 673
| 5th Cir. | 2020Background
- Plaintiff Jane Cummings is deaf and legally blind, primarily uses ASL, and requested ASL interpreters from Premier Rehab for physical therapy in 2016–2017; Premier refused and suggested written notes, lipreading, or bringing her own interpreter.
- Cummings received care elsewhere, which she alleges was unsatisfactory, and sued Premier (a recipient of federal funds) under the Rehabilitation Act (§504), ACA §1557, Title III of the ADA, and Texas law, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The district court dismissed: it held Title III damages unavailable, found emotional-distress damages unavailable under §504 and §1557, and concluded Cummings lacked standing to seek equitable relief; Cummings appealed only the damages ruling under the RA and ACA.
- The Fifth Circuit reviewed de novo whether emotional-distress damages are recoverable under Spending-Clause statutes (RA and §1557 of the ACA).
- The court analyzed the Spending-Clause/contract-law analogy: compensatory damages are generally available, punitive damages are not because recipients are not "on notice," and asked whether emotional-distress damages fall into the compensatory or non-contract category.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are emotional-distress damages recoverable under §504 (RA) and §1557 (ACA)? | Cummings: emotional-distress damages are a foreseeable consequence of discrimination and thus recoverable; Sheely supports recovery. | Premier: Spending-Clause recipients are not on notice of liability for emotional-distress damages, which are generally unavailable under contract law. | No. Emotional-distress damages are not recoverable under §504 or §1557 because funding recipients are not on notice they could face such liability. |
| Should the Eleventh Circuit’s foreseeability analysis in Sheely control here? | Cummings: Sheely’s foreseeability approach shows emotional harm is predictable and puts recipients on notice. | Premier: Sheely conflates foreseeability of harm from a breach with notice that recipients accepted liability for that remedy under Spending-Clause law. | No. The court rejects Sheely’s expansion—foreseeability of harm does not equal Spending-Clause "on notice" of emotional-distress liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (Spending-Clause recipients liable for compensatory but not punitive damages; liability depends on whether recipients were "on notice")
- Sossamon v. Texas, 563 U.S. 277 (Sup. Ct. 2011) (Spending-Clause analogy to contract law is a limitation on liability; contract principles do not automatically apply)
- Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2007) (emotional-distress damages held recoverable under the RA based on foreseeability)
- Franklin v. Gwinnett Cty. Pub. Sch., 503 U.S. 60 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (money damages can be available under Spending-Clause statutes in private suits)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (Spending Clause framed as a contract-like arrangement; recipients must knowingly accept conditions)
- Miller v. Tex. Tech Univ. Health Scis. Ctr., 421 F.3d 342 (5th Cir. 2005) (treating §504 of the Rehabilitation Act as Spending-Clause legislation)