ADA Retaliation Claims

The United States Supreme Court has declined to review a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that bars plaintiffs alleging retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC, U.S., No. 03-1451, cert. denied 6/21/04. Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit was the first federal appellate court to conclude that the ADA does not provide plaintiffs the right to seek such damages in retaliation cases. Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC, 355 F.3d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

The Case

Plaintiff Colleen Kramer worked for Banc of America Securities LLC (the “Bank”) as a team leader. When Kramer was demoted for performance reasons, she responded by sending a letter demanding to be reinstated and informing the Bank that she suffered from multiple sclerosis. Following a 90-day probationary period, Kramer was given a final 1-month period to improve her performance or be terminated. Before the month ended, Kramer filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging disability discrimination and retaliatory discharge under the ADA. After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Kramer filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois.

The district court dismissed Kramer's disability discrimination claims but allowed her to proceed with her retaliation claim. The court concluded, however, that it was empowered only to award injunctive relief in response to the retaliation claim. The court determined that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the Civil Rights Act) did not permit compensatory or punitive damages for ADA retaliation claims. The court further found that because the case was limited to injunctive relief, a jury trial was unavailable. Following a bench trial, the district court dismissed Kramer's retaliatory discharge claim.

The Appeal

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that retaliatory discharge claims under the ADA are limited to injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit noted that the Civil Rights Act amended several employment discrimination statutes to authorize compensatory and punitive damages, but only for certain listed claims. The Seventh Circuit found the Civil Rights Act did not expressly list ADA retaliation claims as meriting compensatory and punitive damages. Because damages were limited to injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit further affirmed that there was no statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari maintains the Seventh Circuit's holding barring employees bringing ADA retaliation claims from seeking punitive or compensatory damages, or a jury trial.

The United States Supreme Court has declined to review a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that bars plaintiffs alleging retaliation claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) from seeking compensatory and punitive damages. Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC, U.S., No. 03-1451, cert. denied 6/21/04. Earlier this year, the Seventh Circuit was the first federal appellate court to conclude that the ADA does not provide plaintiffs the right to seek such damages in retaliation cases. Kramer v. Banc of Am. Securities LLC , 355 F.3d 961 (N.D. Ill. 2004).

The Case

Plaintiff Colleen Kramer worked for Banc of America Securities LLC (the “Bank”) as a team leader. When Kramer was demoted for performance reasons, she responded by sending a letter demanding to be reinstated and informing the Bank that she suffered from multiple sclerosis. Following a 90-day probationary period, Kramer was given a final 1-month period to improve her performance or be terminated. Before the month ended, Kramer filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging disability discrimination and retaliatory discharge under the ADA. After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Kramer filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois.

The district court dismissed Kramer's disability discrimination claims but allowed her to proceed with her retaliation claim. The court concluded, however, that it was empowered only to award injunctive relief in response to the retaliation claim. The court determined that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the Civil Rights Act) did not permit compensatory or punitive damages for ADA retaliation claims. The court further found that because the case was limited to injunctive relief, a jury trial was unavailable. Following a bench trial, the district court dismissed Kramer's retaliatory discharge claim.

The Appeal

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that retaliatory discharge claims under the ADA are limited to injunctive relief. The Seventh Circuit noted that the Civil Rights Act amended several employment discrimination statutes to authorize compensatory and punitive damages, but only for certain listed claims. The Seventh Circuit found the Civil Rights Act did not expressly list ADA retaliation claims as meriting compensatory and punitive damages. Because damages were limited to injunctive relief, the Seventh Circuit further affirmed that there was no statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial.

The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari maintains the Seventh Circuit's holding barring employees bringing ADA retaliation claims from seeking punitive or compensatory damages, or a jury trial.