Disability Discrimination

June 01, 2004

Summary
In an opinion issued on December 31, 2003, Federal District Court Judge James Browning granted the Albuquerque Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss claims for punitive damages and emotional distress damages in a claim brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Khan v. Albuquerque Public Schools, U.S. D.C. D.N.M. Cause No. 03-CV00118.

In an opinion issued on December 31, 2003, Federal District Court Judge James Browning granted the Albuquerque Public Schools’ Motion to Dismiss claims for punitive damages and emotional distress damages in a claim brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Khan v. Albuquerque Public Schools, U.S. D.C. D.N.M. Cause No. 03-CV00118.

Judge Browning applied the analysis from the U.S. Supreme Court case of Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002), wherein the Court, applying contract principles, held that punitive damages are not available in an action which is based upon a federal statute enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution. In Barnes, the Court held that Spending Clause legislation is in the nature of a contract wherein Congress grants funds to recipients in return for the recipient’s promise to comply with the terms of the statute. The Court concluded that the scope of remedies available in an action based on Spending Clause legislation should be analyzed using contract principles. Because punitive damages are not generally available in breach of contract actions, and because punitive damages are of an indeterminate magnitude such that it is unlikely that a recipient of federal funds would subject themselves to such liability exposure, the Court held that punitive damages were unavailable in claims brought pursuant to Section 504 or Title II of the ADA.

Judge Browning, noting that the Supreme Court, by implementing the broader contract analysis, rather than the more narrow alternative suggested by Justice Stevens in a concurring opinion, expressed an intent to apply the contract principles to other remedies in addition to punitive damages. Emotional distress damages, like punitive damages, are not generally recoverable in breach of contract actions. Further, emotional distress damages, like punitive damages, are of an indeterminate magnitude. Applying the contract principles used in Barnes, Judge Browning dismissed Plaintiff’s claims for punitive damages and emotional distress damages.

In Witbeck v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Inc., 269 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (D. Fla. 2003), the court reached the same conclusion.

This case has implications with respect to the remedies available in any claims against school districts brought pursuant to Spending Clause legislation, including claims brought under Section 504, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, No Child Left Behind Act, and others. The court’s analysis would also apply to remedies available in claims brought pursuant to other Spending Clause legislation. For more information on the Khan v. Albuquerque Public Schools’ decision, please contact Mike Carrico or Samantha Adams.