Valerie Brew-Parrish v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University and Cathy Devera
Docket: 95-2477
Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; March 11, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
Valerie Brew-Parrish filed a lawsuit against Southern Illinois University (SIU) claiming discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 after being reassigned from her position as a Professional Placement Counselor to the Student Health Program. She alleged that the reassignment constituted a failure to provide reasonable accommodation, harassment, and disparate treatment due to her disability. A jury found in favor of SIU, concluding that the university did not discriminate against her.
Parrish's appeal centers on the jury instructions given at trial, specifically regarding the limitation of compensatory damages to conduct occurring after November 21, 1991. She argues that the instruction misrepresented the legal framework of the Rehabilitation Act, which does not explicitly limit damages. The district court's rationale for the date limitation is not fully explained, but it aligns with SIU's argument referencing Supreme Court rulings that federal courts have broad discretion in awarding remedies for discrimination. SIU contends that since the Rehabilitation Act draws on the remedies allowed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and given the employment discrimination context, it is appropriate to consider Title VII for determining Congress's intent regarding available remedies. The court ultimately affirmed the jury's verdict, supporting SIU's position.
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, successful Title VII plaintiffs were limited to equitable remedies, and in Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., the Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs could not recover compensatory or punitive damages for conduct that occurred before the Act's enactment. SIU contends that Parrish's damages should be restricted to incidents post-November 21, 1991. However, several Circuit Courts have interpreted Section 504 to permit compensatory damages, affirming that it allows a full range of remedies. Despite this, the court determined that any potential error in jury instructions regarding damages was harmless. Parrish was allowed to present evidence of alleged discriminatory conduct from her entire employment period, including before 1991. The jury instruction merely limited damages to post-1991 conduct, not the consideration of pre-1991 events in assessing discrimination. Parrish's counsel clarified this to the jury, stating that while compensation could not be awarded for pre-1991 incidents, such events could be relevant for assessing ongoing discrimination. The jury ultimately found that SIU did not discriminate against Parrish in various respects, leading to the conclusion that the jury's decision was not influenced by the damage limitation. The judgment was affirmed.
