concluding that compensatory damages for pain and suffering are not available under Title VI or § 504 of the RA
How later courts described this case
- concluding that compensatory damages for pain and suffering are not available under Title VI or § 504 of the RA
- “nothing in the legislative history of Title VI points to any reason why the anti-discrimination statutes should not be treated similarly in [regard to remedies].”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled by Sofia P. Pandazides v. Virginia Board of Education, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae, 13 F.3d 823 (1994)
See, e.g., Schultz v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of U.S., 139 F.3d 286, 290-91 (1st Cir.1998) (denying emotional damages in case alleging unintentional discrimination); Eastman v. Va. Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ., 939 F.2d 204, 208 (4th Cir.1991) (concluding that compensatory damages for pain and suffering are not available under Title VI or § 504 of the RA); Pandazides v. Va. Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 823, 830 (4th…
The opinion
KISER, District Judge,
concurring:
I would affirm the decision of the district court on the basis of its opinion, i.e., the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.