Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., No. 15-15287 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against his former employer, Neiman Marcus, alleging interference with the exercise of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12203(b). The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order finding this action moot and granting summary judgment to Neiman Marcus. The panel held that section 12203 authorized the district court to award nominal damages as equitable relief to plaintiff. Accordingly, the panel remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Labor Law. The panel reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment on mootness grounds to the defendant in a suit alleging interference with the plaintiff’s exercise of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b). The panel concluded that the district court had the power to award the plaintiff only equitable remedies under § 12203(b). The plaintiff sought an injunction prohibiting the defendant, his former employer, from attempting to coerce, intimidate, or threaten employees into waiving their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act by consenting to be bound to an arbitration agreement. In another case, the court had held that the arbitration agreement was not binding on the plaintiff. The panel held that the claim for injunctive relief was moot because the plaintiff had neither shown that he was reasonably likely to be subjected once again to the conduct alleged as the basis for his claim nor shown that he could reasonably be expected to benefit from the injunctive relief he sought. The panel held that the plaintiff’s claims for equitable monetary relief and for a declaration that the arbitration BAYER V. NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP 3 agreement was unlawful, invalid, and unenforceable also were moot. The panel reversed the district court’s ruling that nominal damages were not available to the plaintiff because they were only a legal remedy. The panel held that nominal damages may be awarded as an equitable remedy under § 12203. The panel therefore reversed the district court order finding the case moot and granting summary judgment to the defendant, and remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.