Opinion ID: 2786805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Title I of the ADA

Text: Vaello-Carmona has also asserted an employment discrimination claim under Title I of the ADA. When a cause of action arises from a federal statute, we generally apply federal law to determine whether that claim survives the plaintiff's death. See Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 23 (1980). The survival of claims under federal law depends in the first instance on whether there is an applicable federal survival statute.4 However, [t]here is no general survival statute for federal-question cases, and the ADA is silent as to whether a Title I claim is inheritable. 7C Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1954 (3d ed. 2007). Without statutory guidance, the lower courts are split as to whether to evaluate the survival of an ADA claim under federal common law or the law of the state in which the court hears the claim.5 We do 4 For example, Congress explicitly provides that an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act will survive the death of an employee. See 45 U.S.C. § 59 (stating that [a]ny right of action given by this chapter to a person suffering injury shall survive to his or her personal representative, for the benefit of the surviving widow or husband and children of such employee). 5 The dispute turns on whether 42 U.S.C. § 1988 applies to the ADA. Section 1988 instructs courts to apply state law when there -12- not need to resolve this dispute because the parties agree that Puerto Rico law should apply to the ADA claim. Therefore, we assume, without deciding, that Puerto Rico law governs. See, e.g., Ji v. Bose Corp., 626 F.3d 116, 129 (1st Cir. 2010) (assuming, without deciding, that legal standard applies where both parties agree that the standard . . . was correct). Title I of the ADA protects employees with disabilities against discrimination. The statute allows for monetary damages to qualified employees with disabilities if they are discriminated against on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); see also Rederford v. U.S. Airways, Inc., 589 F.3d 30, 37 (1st Cir. 2009) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117) (stating that Title I of the ADA explicitly provides for the same remedies available for employment are legislative gaps in remedies provided for in certain types of federal civil rights violations. See Robertson v. Wegmann, 436 U.S. 584, 588 (1978). Some courts interpret § 1988 as applying to the ADA, and, therefore, apply state law to determine whether an ADA claim is inheritable. See, e.g., Cardella v. CVS Caremark Corp., No. 3:08-CV-1656-M, 2010 WL 1141393, at  (N.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2010); Rosenblum v. Colo. Dep't of Health, 878 F. Supp. 1404, 1408-09 (D. Colo. 1994). Others find that the ADA is not among the enumerated statutes explicitly listed in § 1988, and, hence, apply federal common law. See, e.g., Kettner v. Compass Group USA, Inc., 570 F. Supp. 2d 1121, 1126-33 (D. Minn. 2008); Hanson v. Atl. Research Corp., No. 4:02-CV-00301-SMR, 2003 WL 430484, at  (E.D. Ark. Feb. 14, 2003). For purposes of § 1988, Puerto Rico is the functional equivalent of a state. -13- discrimination suits in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which includes monetary damages). Just as with Law 100 and Law 44, claims arising under Title I of the ADA provide monetary compensation to an employee for damages that were caused to him during his life due to discrimination from his employer. Sucesión Álvarez, 150 P.R. Dec. at 268; see also Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, 521 F.3d 76, 87 (1st Cir. 2008) (stating that Law 44 is the Puerto Rico analogue to the ADA). Therefore, applying Puerto Rico law, we hold that Vaello-Carmona's employment discrimination claim under Title I of the ADA is inheritable.