by Theo Meranze and Robert D. Skeels
In 2022, in the case Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, the Supreme Court of the United States eliminated plaintiffs’ ability to recover emotional distress damages under antidiscrimination laws enacted pursuant to Congress’ Spending Clause power. Such antidiscrimination laws included the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504). The law has historically been used to obtain compensation for children with disabilities who often suffer emotional harm as a result of discriminatory treatment.
If a child was mistreated or punished due to behaviors related to their disability by a teacher, through this historical use of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), they could have sought compensation for the stress and emotional toll the situation took on them. The 2022 holding in Cummings was a disappointing blow to this righteous legal history. Children with disabilities deserve the right to pursue justice, too.
When the Cummings ruling came out, many in the disability rights community feared that it was only a matter of time before courts would apply the same reasoning to emotional distress claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). On March 11, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit confirmed those fears. In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Court held that emotional distress damages are not available under Title II of the ADA. This means, in short, that it will be much harder for disabled children to receive compensation for harm resulting from defendants failing to adhere to the guidelines outlined by the ADA.
This issue is not fully settled, however. The Court also looked at the possibility of awarding damages under the theory of lost educational opportunities under Title II of the ADA, and agreed that plaintiffs have a right to recovery under that theory. Plaintiffs with disabilities, their advocates, and attorneys should review that part of the Court’s holding to guide future litigation. A tangible example of this use of Title II of the ADA occurred in a case we litigated in which a child was continuously denied the resources needed to get to school, namely a wheelchair. Using Title II of the ADA, we sought damages on behalf of the student for lost educational opportunities. We hope that this avenue for Justice will not be closed soon. Children with disabilities, like all children and people in this nation, deserve every opportunity possible to fight for justice if they’re mistreated.
We will continue to post updates as the situation continues.
Latest Posts: