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.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. 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.

The Royal Law Firm Awarded Finalist of 2025 Best of The Valley Readers’ Poll

March 28, 2025
The Royal Law Firm was a Finalist for Best Law Firm in The Best of The Valley Readers' Poll for 2025, as published by the Valley Advocate! Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.
Share by: