ADEA Does Not Allow Compensatory Damages For Pain And Suffering
Ramón Collazo brought suit against his employer, alleging that he was discriminated against in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). He argued that he suffered mental and emotional distress as a result of the hostile work environment created by the employer. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant because the conduct at issue, in the court's view, was “not sufficiently severe or pervasive” to create a hostile work environment.
On appeal, the 1st Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, but on an alternate ground, holding that even if Collazo's allegations were true, the remedy he sought (compensatory damages for mental anguish, pain, suffering, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment) was not available under the statute:
Enacted in 1967 as part of an ongoing congressional effort to eradicate discrimination in the workplace, the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age. To state a claim under the ADEA, a plaintiff must establish that he “suffered an adverse job action, that this was motivated by age, and that he suffered injury as a result of it.”
The district court concluded that Collazo failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADEA because the incidents of harassment he described were, as a matter of law, “not sufficiently severe or pervasive to support a hostile work environment claim under the ADEA.” However, there is a more basic problem with Collazo's claim. Collazo has “failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted” because the remedy he seeks, compensatory damages for the alleged mental anguish, pain, suffering, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment he suffered as a result of being required to work in a hostile work environment based on his age, is not available to him under the statute. Although we have recognized hostile work environment claims under the ADEA, it is well-established that the statute does not allow compensatory damages for pain and suffering, Modeled after the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the remedy provisions of the ADEA allow awards for “only those pecuniary benefits connected to the job relation,” including unpaid wages or overtime compensation. Aside from monetary relief, federal courts may also grant “such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the Act,” including reinstatement or promotion, if warranted.
Here, Collazo has made no claim for pecuniary benefits related to his job or any equitable relief. His claim is limited to compensatory damages for pain and suffering. Therefore, even if he could establish a hostile work environment claim based on the record before us, the damages he seeks are not available.
Collazo v. Nicholson
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico and Rhode Island.