Royal

Title IX Not Entitled to Emotional Distress Damages

June 7, 2023

For the first time in Massachusetts, a federal judge has ruled that emotional distress damages are unavailable to a student bringing a Title IX claim against their school.



Here, a student at North Andover High School alleged that another student had sexually assaulted them. It was the student’s claim that the school officials failed to adequately investigate and address the claims of sexual assault.


The School argued in response that emotional distress damages under Title IX were discontinued under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C.


In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs could not recover damages for emotional distress under the Rehabilitation Act of 1972 or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The court based its finding off of the notion that because such damages are not typically available in contract law, recipients of federal funding lack clear notice that they might face such a remedy under spending clause statutes such as the Rehabilitation Act and the ACA. The School argued that the same applies to Title IX claims.


The U.S. District Court Judge agreed with the School.


“Although the Supreme Court’s holding applies directly only to the Rehabilitation Act and the ACA, the opinion discussed the four Spending Clause Acts, including Title IX,” the judge wrote. “Finding no basis to treat Title IX differently than the Rehabilitation Act and the ACA, the court concludes that Cummings precludes damages for emotional distress under Title IX.”


The U.S. District Court may have diminished the student’s ability to recover emotional distress damages, but the Court has allowed the Title IX claims to move forward and the Student may pursue other avenues of damages to recover.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: