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.

Brandon Calton admitted to the United States District Court of Connecticut

June 10, 2025
Brandon Calton is now admitted to the United States District Court, Connecticut! The Royal Law Firm is passionate about expanding our reach so that we can better serve our clients and their needs. Brandon is admitted in Massachusetts, the United States District Court of Massachusetts, and the United States District Court of Connecticut.

Federal Court Vacates EEOC’s “Abortion Accommodation Mandate” in PWFA

By Heather Child • June 9, 2025
On May 21, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana struck down a provision in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) final rule under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), ruling that the agency exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accommodate elective abortions that are not medically necessary. Background Information: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the constitutional right to abortion. Congress passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in December 2022, and it became effective in June 2023. The law requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodation to qualified applicants or employees who have physical or mental conditions related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would cause significant difficulty or expense for the employer. In April 2024, The EEOC issued its final interpretation of the PWFA including abortion in the definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or other related medical conditions” thereby requiring employers to provide accommodations related to abortion. In May 2024, the states of Mississippi and Louisiana sued the EEOC, arguing that the interpretation conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision and their respective state laws on abortion. In June 2024, Judge Joseph found that the EEOC exceeded its authority and issued a preliminary injunction postponing the effective date of the interpretation to provide accommodation for elective abortions until final judgment was entered in this matter. The final judgment was entered on May 21, 2025, that remanded the matter to the EEOC to revise the final rule and all related implementing regulations and guidances. Employer Takeaways: While employers are no longer (as of now) REQUIRED to provide accommodation for elective abortions, the remainder of the PWFA remains in full effect The decision to have or not have an abortion remains protected under Title VII The PWFA does not supersede state or local laws providing greater protection for pregnant workers. It is important to stay up to date on state regulations to ensure employers are complying with state laws. While it is still unclear how this ruling will impact employers nationwide, it is still important to continue to stay up to date on ever-changing legislation.  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.