Introduction
No, the discriminatory damages available under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other related statutes do not include emotional distress compensation. The Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act, which provide remedies for discrimination victims, are implied as related acts in this context. Since the rights of action are implied, the remedies provided by the laws are vague in the case of Cummings (Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C, n.d.). It seems justified that the victim is not entitled to compensation for their emotional distress.
Discussion
Although it would seem enticing to advance the theory of emotional distress compensation, the effects could be disastrous for small enterprises, which are the backbone of the American economy. When mental discomfort is coupled with objectively bad behavior that infringes on people’s rights, damages for emotional distress are frequently granted. For instance, those who purposefully or negligently cause emotional pain against individuals can face penalties under tort law and employment discrimination. The victim, however, does not assert that the denial of an interpreter caused her any direct physical harm, monetary losses, or other tangible losses. Additionally, Cummings’ situation was unique because the facility provided alternative accommodation, which in her opinion, was insufficient to suit her needs.
Although businesses and individuals can choose their words and actions, they have no control over how others will feel. Holding them solely responsible for someone’s hurt feelings could lead to several frivolous claims for supposed transgressions of the anti-discrimination laws. Additionally, it would undermine the credibility of claims for compensation and injustices made by actual victims of discrimination. Since it can be used as a justification to sue people and companies, emotional distress is nearly entirely subjective, as confirmed by the Cumming versus Premier Rehab Keller verdict (Perry & Schuster, 2021). For instance, the anti-discrimination law would be improperly exploited if the alleged discriminatory behavior involved honoring individual beliefs. Theoretically, numerous small businesses and individuals could file for bankruptcy due to careless judicial precedents, with vast, unknown, and uncontrollable repercussions.
The Barnes v. Gorman case compares closely to the Cummings case in many aspects. A jury awarded compensatory and punitive damages to a disabled man injured in an unequipped police van (Congressional Research Service, 2022). Although the Supreme Court determined that he was not eligible for punitive damages, it did not affect compensatory damages (Congressional Research Service, 2022). The victim, in this instance, experienced actual physical harm, not just mental discomfort, which should be noted. Because objectively damaging behavior was not present, Cummings’ emotional suffering was subjective and should not have any compensation.
Conclusion
The primary comparable compensatory damage in this case should be a breach of contract. A general rule is that damages for mental distress are not recoverable in a contract, but this case is subject to exception as denying access to service could undermine the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. However, the victim should submit as much proof as feasible to seek compensation for deliberate mental distress. It includes evidence of seeing a therapist, counselor, or psychiatrist since the incident occurred. Any new diagnosis or medication changes may provide additional evidence, including any physical symptoms. The jury can use receipts for therapy, medication, or antidepressants to calculate recovery costs. Additional medical support, such as a therapist’s testimony or session notes, should help estimate monetary compensation.
References
Congresional Research Service. (2022). Civil rights remedies in Cummings and implications for title VI and title IX. Congresional Research Service. Web.
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. (n.d.). Retrieved from Oyez. Web.
Perry, S., & Schuster, T. (2021). Supreme court will determine if customers can sue businesses for āemotional distress: This has serious implications for religious freedom. The Daily Signal. Web.