Reversing and vacating the district court’s final judgment after retrial on remand in a disability discrimination action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against Los Angeles Community College District (“LACCD”), the panel held that the district court abused its discretion in granting remittitur of damages.

Roy Payan, Portia Mason, National Federal of the Blind, Inc., and National Federation of the Blind of California, Inc., alleged discrimination in Payan’s and Mason’s treatment as students at LACCD. The jury found LACCD liable on fourteen factual allegations, and it found that LACCD had intentionally violated Title II on nine of them. Based on LACCD’s intentional conduct, the jury awarded damages to Payan and Mason. The district court granted LACCD’s motion for remittitur, reducing the damages from $218,500 to $1,650 for Payan and from $24,000 to $0 for Mason. The district court also awarded injunctive relief against LACCD.

The panel concluded that LACCD did not forfeit the argument that emotional distress damages were not available. The panel held that in light of Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022) (holding that emotional distress damages are not recoverable under antidiscrimination laws enacted pursuant to Congress’ Spending Clause power), emotional distress damages are not available under Title II of the ADA. The panel explained that, while Title II is a non-Spending Clause antidiscrimination law, it explicitly defines its rights and remedies as those of the Rehabilitation Act, which was enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause. Agreeing with the Eleventh Circuit, the panel nonetheless held that the district court erred in failing to consider whether Payan and Mason were awarded other appropriate forms of relief, such as compensatory damages for loss of educational opportunities. The panel concluded that the jury’s award was consistent with the evidence presented at trial and the district court’s instructions regarding damages. The panel remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and a corresponding memorandum disposition, with instructions to reinstate the jury’s damages award of $218,500 to Payan and $24,000 to Mason.

Dissenting in part, Judge Lee agreed with the majority that Payan and Mason could not recover emotional distress damages under Title II of the ADA but could still seek other pecuniary damages for opportunities lost after suffering unlawful discrimination. Judge Lee disagreed, however, with the majority’s conclusion that Payan and Mason offered sufficient evidence to prove that they were entitled to damages for lost educational opportunities.

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/03/11/24-1809.pdf