查看文章

In the past two decades, business groups and their political allies have often criticized broad civil rights remedies-particularly the availability of money damages-as encouraging abusive and extortionate litigation practices.'They have thus fought to limit the remedies available for violations of civil rights laws-with limited success in the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 2 and with greater success in the enactment of the public accommodations title of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). 3 In its decision in Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources,'the US Supreme Court seemed to heed those

1. See, eg, HR REP. No. 102-40 pt. 1, at 124 (1991), reprinted in 1991 USCCAN 549, 653 (minority views in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1991, arguing that the addition of a damages remedy for employment discrimination would create" a litigation …