Opinion ID: 1965139
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unreasonable results of a literal interpretation

Text: ¶ 12. Like the overwhelming majority of federal circuit courts, we are persuaded that Alberte's literal interpretation of the phrase and any agent does not make sense in light of the entire scheme of Title VII and the ADA. ¶ 13. To begin with, Title VII and the ADA both limit employer liability to employers who have more than 15 employees. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A). [4] Thus, under Alberte's interpretation, although an entity that employs fewer than fifteen employees would be protected from liability, an individual supervisor would be subject to liability. It seems doubtful that Congress would subject individuals to liability while at the same time protecting small employers from liability. Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Miller, 991 F.2d at 587); Birkbeck, 30 F.3d at 510; Miller, 991 F.2d at 587. Such a result would upset the statutory framework, which strikes a careful balance between Congress's desire to eradicate all discrimination and its desire to protect small entities from the burden of litigation. AIC, 55 F.3d at 1281. ¶ 14. Furthermore, the remedies available to plaintiffs under these statutes also support the conclusion that Congress did not intend to impose liability on individuals. Until the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, was enacted, a plaintiff suing under Title VII or the ADA could only seek back pay, reinstatement, and other forms of equitable relief; these remedies are generally recoverable from an entity rather than an individual. Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1314; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(1)(1990). The fact that Congress originally only provided for remedies that are typically recovered from an employing entity rather than an individual suggests that Congress did not intend to impose liability on individuals. Hiler, 177 F.3d at 546 (citing Wathen, 115 F.3d at 406); Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1314-15; AIC, 55 F.3d at 1281. ¶ 15. Alberte points out that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended the law to allow for compensatory and punitive damages and argues that individual liability is consistent with the amended remedial framework. We determine that, to the contrary, the 1991 amendments provide further support for the conclusion that Congress did not contemplate individual liability under the ADA. Although compensatory and punitive remedies are remedies that generally may be recovered from individuals, [i]t is a long stretch to conclude that Congress silently intended to abruptly change its earlier vision through an amendment to the remedial portions of the statute alone. AIC, 55 F.3d at 1281. It seems more likely that if Congress intended to so drastically amend the remedies available under Title VII and the ADA, it would have explicitly provided for individual liability. ¶ 16. Moreover, the Civil Rights Act of 1991 enacted a detailed scheme of statutory limits on compensatory and punitive damage awards, depending on the number of employees employed by an employer. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). For example, a damage award against an employer who employs between 15 and 100 employees may not exceed $50,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(A). An employer who employs between 101 and 200 employees may be liable for up to $100,000 in damages, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(B), while an employer who employs between 201 and 500 employees may be liable for up to $200,000 in damages. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(C). Finally, damages against an employer who employs over 500 employees are limited to $300,000. 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3)(D). ¶ 17. Nothing in this detailed scheme of limitations on damage awards refers to awards against individuals. If Congress had intended to subject individuals to liability, surely it would have accounted for individuals in this detailed scheme of damages caps. Hiler, 177 F.3d at 546 (quoting Wathen, 115 F.3d at 406). Congress's silence on the question of damage awards against individuals is strong evidence that Congress simply did not contemplate individual liability. Wathen, 115 F.3d at 406; Sheridan, 100 F.3d at 1077; Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1315; AIC, 55 F.3d at 1281; Miller, 991 F.2d at 587 n.2. ¶ 18. Alberte rejects this reasoning and argues that, instead, after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the damage award that may be recovered from an individual for violation of Title VII or the ADA depends upon the size of the employer that employs the individual. For instance, Alberte contends that a supervisor who works for a business that employs 20 people could be held liable for up to $50,000, while a supervisor who works for a business that employs 1,000 people could be held liable for up to $300,000. ¶ 19. Alberte's interpretation would mean that an individual who works for a large employer could be liable for $300,000 in damages, while a business entity that employs fewer than 99 workers could only be subjected to $50,000 in damages. We agree with the Seventh Circuit that it is highly improbable that Congress intended such inequitable results. AIC, 55 F.3d at 1281 n.6. See also Tomka, 66 F.3d at 1316 (It is doubtful that such an anomalous result was contemplated by a Congress that failed even to address individual liability.). It therefore appears that Alberte's interpretation of the phrase and any agent does not fit the overall remedial scheme of the statute and would produce unreasonable results. ¶ 20. In sum, we conclude that Alberte's interpretation of these statutes to permit individual liability rests on an improperly narrow reading of the phrase and any agent. When the phrase is read together with the rest of the statute, Alberte's interpretation produces inconsistent, unreasonable results. When a literal construction of a statutory provision produces unreasonable results, the court will look to the statute's context, history, and purposes to determine the legislative intent. Katz, 271 U.S. at 357. See also Bock Laundry, 490 U.S. at 527 (Scalia, J., concurring)(I think it entirely appropriate to consult all public materials. . .to verify that what seems to us an unthinkable disposition . . .was indeed unthought of. . . .); Phinpathya, 464 U.S. at 198 ([When] a literal interpretation of a statutory provision may indeed lead to absurd consequences we must look beyond the terms of the provision to the underlying congressional intent.)(Brennan, J., concurring)(citation omitted); Connell, 264 Wis. at 284-85.