How Are Victims of Discrimination Prevented from Obtaining Full Relief and Damages?
Fact Sheet - Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund - February 2004
A person's right to sue for a violation of his or her civil rights is meaningless without the ability to obtain a lawyer, cover the costs of litigation, or obtain a fair measure of damages. All too often, victims of discrimination are people who have lost their jobs, have little or no income, or otherwise have little access to legal representation. Nonetheless, many "small" cases brought by persons of limited means have had a dramatic impact on the enforcement of, and compliance with, the civil rights laws.
Lawsuits brought by individuals remain the most efficient method of ensuring compliance with civil rights laws. Accordingly, Congress provided ways to compensate lawyers who take civil rights cases, by allowing successful plaintiffs to recover from defendants their attorneys' fees and their litigation costs. Congress has also authorized the use of punitive damages designed to encourage the employer to change its discriminatory practices.
The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund believes that ensuring individuals' ability to effectively enforce their civil rights is an issue of fundamental importance to the guarantee of equal rights and justice for all Americans. Unfortunately, there continue to be major impediments to individuals seeking to pursue their rights. Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it much more difficult for victims of discrimination to recover their attorneys' fees, their litigation costs, or a full measure of damages --- even if they win their lawsuit. In addition, arbitrary limitations in current law force victims of gender, disability, or religious discrimination to accept incomplete compensation for their losses.
Loss 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 changed what had been the law in many circuits.
- Buckhannon 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. And because cases that might have a broader societal impact are also more expensive to litigate, Congress' intention that individual civil rights cases have a broad effect is frustrated.
No Punitive Damages in Disabilities 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 damages for discrimination against persons with disabilities, no matter how egregious or intentional the discrimination.
- Results in protecting some of the worst discriminators from having to take full responsibility for their discriminatory acts; and
-
Deprives victims of their full remedies under the law.
For individuals seeking to stop discrimination and pursue their rights in court, the ability to recover attorneys' fees and costs, be fully compensated for their loss, and utilize the deterrent effect of punitive damages, is critical. Ensuring that individuals who have proven discrimination are able to obtain a full and effective remedy is a critical component of ensuring civil rights for all Americans.
The Effect - One Example
Wade v. Coughlin
Residents of the Great Oaks Center, a Maryland institution for individuals with developmental disabilities, sued the state alleging that they had been subject to abuse, neglect, unnecessary physical restraints, denied medical care and services to prevent their deterioration. They sought to stop new admissions to Great Oaks Center and to have current residents transferred to appropriate community living arrangements.
Four years after the suit was filed, the state closed Great Oaks and within three years, all but two of the residents were transferred to community placements. The parties agreed to dismiss the case. The residents sought reimbursement for their attorney's work, which amounted to more than $1 million. Although the court agreed that the lawsuit had contributed substantially to the state's actions, the plaintiffs could not use the catalyst theory to recover damages.
