BarbriSFCourseDetails
  1. keyboard_arrow_leftBack

Course Details

Course Information
  • smart_display Format

    On-Demand

  • signal_cellular_alt Difficulty Level

    Intermediate

  • work Practice Area

    Employment and Workers Comp

Date & Time
  • event Date

    Wednesday, August 23, 2023

  • schedule Time

    1:00 p.m. ET./10:00 a.m. PT

  • timer Program Length

    90 minutes

Credit Information

  • This 90-minute webinar is eligible in most states for 1.5 CLE credits.

$297.00
CLE
ALL

This CLE webinar will address the Supreme Court's decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions for discrimination to enforce certain federal statutes. The panel will discuss how this will likely affect future employment discrimination claims and the limitation on damages for both employers and employees.

Faculty

Sarah N. Turner
Partner
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP

Ms. Turner's litigation experience includes defending employers in wrongful discharge, discrimination, harassment, retaliation, invasion of privacy, defamation, and wage and hour suits in state and federal courts. She counsels, trains, and represents clients on a broad range of employment law issues, including hiring, review, and termination procedures; workplace investigations; discrimination, harassment, and retaliation issues; wage and hour law and FMLA issues. Ms. Turner also drafts and updates personnel policies, workplace privacy issues, employee handbooks, drug and alcohol policies, employment agreements, trade secret issues, and non-competition agreements.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio
Andrew G.I. Kilberg
Attorney
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Mr. Kilberg served as Counselor to Secretary Eugene Scalia at the U.S. Department of Labor from 2019 to 2021.  In that role, he briefed and advised the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on a wide range of matters and led teams on important regulatory and other projects for the Office of the Secretary, including matters concerning environmental, social, and governance investing, proxy voting, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, independent contractor status, apprenticeships, religious accommodation, evidentiary standards and procedures for non-discrimination enforcement actions, and the coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Kilberg represents clients in a wide range of appellate, regulatory, and complex litigation matters across a variety of industries in front of both federal and state courts and agencies, with an emphasis on labor and employment and telecommunications matters.

expand_circle_down Expand to View Full Bio expand_circle_up Collapse Bio

Description

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller (2022) that emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions to enforce statutes authorized under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which conditions receipt of federal funds on compliance with the statute.

Statutes authorized under the Spending Clause include:

  • Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination based on disability
  • Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex-based discrimination and harassment at educational institutions
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits race discrimination in educational institutions
  • Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which prohibits healthcare entities from discriminating based on race, sex, disability, or age

The Court held that the Spending Clause statutes do not permit recovery of emotional distress damages because an emotional injury is not generally recoverable for breach of contract.

This ruling will be significant for colleges, universities, school districts, charter schools, and healthcare providers, most of whom are federal funding recipients. Students and patients can no longer recover emotional distress damages under these statutes, which historically have been a substantial portion of the damages sought in such actions.

While the decision is limited to Spending Clause antidiscrimination statutes, employment attorneys must consider the effect of this case and future decisions on discrimination claims.

Listen as our expert panel discusses the ramifications of the Cummings decision and best practices for pursuing discrimination claims under this new framework.

Outline

  1. Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller
    1. History
    2. Holding
      1. Limitation on emotional distress damages
    3. Dissent
    4. Takeaways
  2. Best practices

Benefits

The panel will discuss these and other important topics:

  • What was the holding in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, and how is it limited?
  • How may the holding in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller affect future discrimination claims?
  • What are the best practices for litigating discrimination claims in the Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller framework?