David Schultz v. Young Men's Christian Association of the United States of America

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• suggesting that, in a suit under Section 504, \damages for emotional distress [might] be justified to punish patent misbehavior or the deliberate infliction of humiliation\
• holding that plaintiff was not entitled to damages for emotional distress when there was no allegation of economic loss and “not the slightest hint that [the defendant] was prompted by malice or hostility toward [the plaintiff] or toward the disabled”
• seemingly applying a much more difficult standard when it rejected an ADA claim because there was “not the slightest hint that the [defendant] was prompted by malice or hostility toward [the plaintiff] or toward the disabled”
• “The disability statutes were meant to counter mistaken assumptions, no matter how dramatic or widespread.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).