Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
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.
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
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
How Secure Is the AI System Your Law Firm Is Using?
What Law Firms Need to Know Before Trusting AI Systems with Confidential Information In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
COVID-19 and Lease Negotiations: Early Termination Provisions
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
Pleading Importation: ITC Decisions Highlight Need for Adequate Evidentiary Support
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
The Power of Your Inner Circle: Turning Friends and Social Contacts Into Business Allies
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
Authentic Communications Today Increase Success for Value-Driven Clients
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.