Barnes v. Gorman (2002)

By: Eowyn Dautrich

Overview

Barnes v. Gorman (2002) is a Supreme Court case in which plaintiff Jeffrey Gorman filed suit against members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, the chief of police, and the officer who drove the police van that transported him to the police station, alleging discrimination based on his disability in violation of § 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiff is a paraplegic who lacks voluntary control over his lower torso, including his bladder, forcing him to wear a catheter attached to a urine bag around his waist. The defendants argued that punitive damages were not available under § 202 of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The primary issue in this case is whether punitive damages are available to plaintiffs bringing a private lawsuit under § 202 of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Summary

In May 1992, plaintiff Jeffrey Gorman was arrested for trespassing after an altercation with a bouncer at a Kansas City, Missouri, nightclub. Gorman, a paraplegic, is confined to his wheelchair and lacks voluntary control of his lower torso, including his bladder, forcing him to wear a catheter with a urine bag attached to his waist. While waiting to be transported to the police station, he asked to empty his urine bag in the restroom, but he was denied permission. After the van had arrived, as he could not take a normal police car, the van was not equipped for Gorman’s wheelchair. Despite his objection, the officers removed him from his wheelchair and used a seatbelt and his own belt to strap him to a narrow bench at the rear of the van. During the ride to the police station, Gorman removed his seatbelt, fearing the excessive pressure on his urine bag would cause it to rupture. Eventually, the other seatbelt came loose, and he fell to the floor, rupturing the urine bag and injuring his shoulder and back. The driver, the only officer in the van, was unable to lift Gorman and fastened him to a support for the remainder of the ride. Upon arriving at the station, Gorman was booked, processed, and released. After these events, Gorman suffered serious medical problems, including a bladder infection, serious lower back pain, and uncontrollable spasms in his paralyzed areas, leaving him unable to work full time [1]. 

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendants, Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, the chief of police, and the officer who drove the van, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The suit claimed there was discrimination against the plaintiff on the basis of his disability, in violation of § 202 of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, by failing to have appropriate procedures for the arrest and transportation of a person with spinal cord injuries (Barnes v. Gorman). 

In court, the jury found the defendants liable and awarded the plaintiff over $1 million in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. However, the District Court removed the punitive damages, holding that punitive damages are unavailable in suits under § 202 of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This holding was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, based on the decision in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992), which stated the “general rule” that “absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute.” The Supreme Court then became involved after granting certiorari [1]. 

Public entities are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities under Section 202 of the ADA. Additionally, entities that receive federal funding, including private organizations, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. If there is a violation of the Rehabilitation Act, remedies are available under Title VI, which also applies to violations of § 504. The remedies for violations of § 202 of the ADA and § 504 are the same as those available under Title VI [1]. However, the appropriate relief available for a federal violation was not specifically defined, leading the Supreme Court to consider whether punitive damages were appropriate relief for the plaintiff.

After considering the federally imposed conditions under the Spending Clause, the Court applied a contract-law analogy, finding that funding recipients could be held liable for compensatory damages but not punitive damages. Punitive damages are generally not available for breach of contract, so funding recipients are not contractually obligated to pay punitive damages in a private suit under § 202 of the ADA or § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This is because contractual terms are conditions that the parties must agree to, and imposing liability on the states under a contract to which they did not agree would create an unfair legal obligation. This is true for any private suits under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act follow (Barnes v. Gorman). 

In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court found that punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits and that municipalities are not liable for such damages, reversing the Eighth Circuit’s ruling. The plaintiff was granted over $1 million in compensatory damages. 

Impact

The Supreme Court ruled that the remedies available in private disability-discrimination suits under § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are limited. The Court held that punitive damages cannot be awarded because recipients of federal funding were not contractually obligated to accept unknown potential liabilities. The decision clarified that, in private disability-discrimination lawsuits, plaintiffs may still pursue compensatory remedies under § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Court Documents

Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (122 S. Ct. 2097; 153 L. Ed. 2d 230).

Citations: 

[1] Barnes v. Gorman. 536 U.S. 181. Supreme Court of the United States, 17 June 2002. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/181/. Accessed 27 Sept. 2026.