Tayler Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.
861 F.3d 853
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Tayler Bayer worked for Neiman Marcus; after medical leave for emphysema his physician restricted him to four days/week and a dispute arose over accommodation and full-time status.
- Neiman Marcus implemented a mandatory arbitration agreement in 2007; Bayer refused to acknowledge it and filed an EEOC charge alleging unlawful interference with ADA rights (§ 12203(b)).
- Bayer filed multiple suits related to his employment: an accommodation suit (settled), a retaliation suit (he prevailed against arbitration over two appeals), and this suit challenging the arbitration-imposition as ADA interference after receiving a delayed EEOC right-to-sue letter.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Neiman Marcus as moot, concluding no present controversy remained; Bayer appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed whether equitable relief remained available under § 12203(b) (which incorporates Title VII enforcement provisions via § 12117) and whether nominal damages could preserve Article III jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether any equitable relief remains so action is not moot | Bayer argued district court could order equitable relief (injunction, personnel-file letter, reimbursement, declaratory relief, or at least nominal damages) sufficient to prevent mootness | Neiman Marcus argued Bayer no longer faces enforceable arbitration, compensatory relief is unavailable under Alvarado, and declaratory/ injunctive relief would be purely advisory | Court held injunctive, reimbursement, and declaratory relief were moot or unavailable as equitable relief in these circumstances, but nominal damages can be equitable and thus preserve the suit |
| Whether § 12203(b) authorizes compensatory (monetary) damages | Bayer sought reimbursement for medical/legal costs as equitable relief | Neiman Marcus argued monetary relief sought was legal (compensatory) and unavailable under Alvarado’s limitation to equitable relief | Court held compensatory monetary relief is legal and unavailable under § 12203(b) per Alvarado |
| Whether a declaratory judgment that defendant violated § 12203(b) would be meaningful | Bayer argued a declaration would vindicate rights and affect employer policy | Neiman Marcus argued any declaration would be advisory because Bayer is not likely to face the policy again | Court held declaratory relief was moot because there was no substantial, immediate controversy likely to affect Bayer in future |
| Whether nominal damages are available under § 12203(b) to avoid mootness | Bayer argued nominal damages vindicate dignitary civil-rights interests and can be equitable | Neiman Marcus argued nominal damages are monetary/legal and thus unavailable under Alvarado | Court held § 12203 authorizes nominal damages as equitable relief when "complete justice" requires, reversing dismissal as moot and remanding |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, traceability, redressability)
- Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (mootness requires that no effectual relief can be granted)
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (declaratory-judgment case-or-controversy standard)
- Alvarado v. Cajun Operating Co., 588 F.3d 1261 (9th Cir.) (holding § 12203 claims are redressable only by equitable relief)
- Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862 (nominal damages can prevent mootness)
- Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247 (nominal damages vindicate rights absent provable injury)
- Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (equity’s duty to eliminate discriminatory effects and secure complete justice)