The FAIRNESS Act will restore civil rights for individuals with disabilities in the following ways.
In Alexander v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court held that individuals cannot use private lawsuits to enforce regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting practices that have the effect of discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. In doing so, the Court eliminated a critical legal avenue for individuals seeking redress for civil rights violations. The Sandoval decision is contrary to the way federal civil rights laws have been interpreted for thirty years. Civil rights plaintiffs are now forced to either rely on federal agencies to vindicate their rights or meet the extraordinary hurdle of proving intentional discrimination in every case. This bill confirms that individuals may obtain relief under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 from practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect.
In Love v. Delta Airlines, the 11th Circuit held that when Congress passed the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986, Congress did not intend to create a private right of action with which individuals with disabilities could sue air carriers in federal court for discrimination based on disability. Also, unlike other civil rights statutes, the ACAA does not contain a fee-shifting provision under which a prevailing plaintiff can be awarded attorney’s fees. This bill makes clear that there is a private right of action to enforce the ACAA, that money damages, including punitive damages, are available in such an action, and that a prevailing plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.
Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees
In Buckhannon Board & Care Home v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, the Supreme Court held that if a losing defendant “voluntarily” changes its conduct as a result of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the plaintiff does not have the right to recover attorneys’ fees from the defendant—even if the lawsuit was the catalyst for the defendant’s change in conduct. This holding, which changed what had been the law in many circuits, limits the fee award even if the “voluntary” change in the defendants’ conduct occurred after years of litigation and at great cost to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it has become very difficult for plaintiffs to obtain counsel for these expensive and risky cases. The bill makes clear that a “prevailing party” for purposes of the recovery of attorney’s fees includes a party whose pursuit of a non-frivolous claim or defense was a catalyst for a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the opposing party that provides a significant part of the relief sought.
Punitive Damages in Disability Cases
Punitive damages are usually awarded when a plaintiff successfully proves not only that the defendant discriminated against him or her, but also that the defendant’s actions were egregious and/or an intentional violation of the civil rights laws. In many civil rights cases, because the amount of compensatory damages owed to a plaintiff is minimal, the threat of substantial punitive damages is the only effective way to force a defendant to change its illegal conduct. In Barnes v. Gorman, the Supreme Court began to undermine this effective enforcement tool by eliminating punitive damage awards for victims of intentional discrimination based on disability.
The bill clarifies that punitive damages are available for intentional discrimination under Title VI, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title IX.
Effective Remedies for Disability-based Harassment
In Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, the Supreme Court held that students subjected to sexual harassment may receive a damages remedy under Title IX only when school officials have “actual notice” of the harassment and are “deliberately indifferent” to it. This standard is much higher than workers need to establish for harassment under Title VII. Because of the similarities in the wording and interpretation of the underlying statutes, this standard may be applied to claims for damages brought under Section 504. This bill incorporates the Title VII sexual harassment language into Title IX, Title VI and Section 504, thus making clear that victims of harassment based on gender, race, or disability in federally funded programs have the same ability as workers to vindicate their rights.