Much Ado About Cummings: The Curtailment of Civil Rights Enforcement and Its Impact on Title IX
Loading...
Authors
Dunn, Laura L.
Issue Date
2023-06
Volume
56
Issue
3
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Through Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), Congress prohibits sex discrimination in educational settings receiving federal funding. In 1979, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted Title IX as implying a private right of action. Thereafter, for the last 50 years, plaintiffs have used Title IX to dismantle discriminatory practices at educational institutions that have denied equal access to educational programs and activities based on sex. Recently, in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, PLLC, the U.S. Supreme Court prohibited the recovery of emotional distress damages under civil rights statutes enacted under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. While plaintiffs’ attorneys across the country scramble to settle impacted cases, Congress and the public seem oblivious to the civil rights curtailment underway. Without recovery of emotional distress damages, for-profit law firms are not sufficiently incentivized to litigate civil rights cases on a contingency fee basis, and the average individual cannot otherwise afford to litigate.5 This article analyzes the impact of Cummings on Title IX plaintiffs seeking emotional distress damages and the remaining legal arguments to support such claims, if any.
Description
Citation
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law