Opinion
Civil Action 23-2248-KHV
08-30-2023
ROBIN BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS As Representative of Kansas City Board of Public Utilities, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed suit against defendant, her former employer, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and § 12203, sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and race discrimination and retaliation in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Amended Complaint (Doc. #4) filed July 7, 2023. This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion To Strike Plaintiffs Request For Punitive Damages (Doc. #5) filed August 4, 2023. For reasons set forth below, the Court sustains defendant's motion.
Defendant moves to strike plaintiff's request for punitive damages. Plaintiff has not filed a response to defendant's motion. Pursuant to District of Kansas Local Rule 7.1(c), if a party opposing a motion does not file a response, the Court considers the motion uncontested and will grant the motion without further notice. For this reason and for substantially the reasons stated in Defendant's Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Request For Punitive Damages (Doc. #5), the Court sustains defendant's motion.
Defendant correctly notes that because it is a governmental entity, plaintiff cannot recover punitive damages against it under the ADA, Title VII or 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(1) (punitive damages not available in § 1981 or Title VII suits against government, government agency or political subdivision); Hamer v. City of Trinidad, 924 F.3d 1093, 1109 (10th Cir. 2019) (punitive damages not recoverable against governmental entity for ADA discrimination claim); Boe v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 131 F.Supp.2d 1197, 1203 (D. Kan. 2001) (punitive damages not available for ADA retaliation claim).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant's Motion To Strike Plaintiff's Request For Punitive Damages (Doc. #5) filed August 4, 2023 is SUSTAINED.