Opinion ID: 199137
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages under the ADA

Text: 30 We turn next to plaintiff's contention that the district court's decision erred in not awarding damages under the ADA separate from, and in addition to, the award of double damages pursuant to Local Law 44. 3 This contention is meritless. The verdict form prepared by the district court allowed the jury to determine defendant's liability separately under the ADA and Law 44, but required that damages be awarded jointly without any allocation between the two laws. Plaintiffs did not object to this aspect of the jury form. 4 Against this background, the district court concluded: 31 The $225,000 verdict seeks to redress all damages sustained by Mrs. Marcano Rivera related to defendant's discriminatory conduct regardless of the legal source. Therefore, even though plaintiff Marie Marcano Rivera is entitled to a duplication of the jury's damages award pursuant to the scheme established by Law No. 44, the mental anguish and suffering resulting from her discrimination in employment is one and the same for both Law No. 44 and ADA. 32 In our opinion, the jury's verdict is not susceptible to any other interpretation. Since the plaintiffs have provided us with no authority that convinces us otherwise, we decline to examine this argument further. 5