Whether a discrimination plaintiff who can prove a legal violation is entitled to an award of nominal damages under Spending Clause legislation

QUESTION PRESENTED Tracy Nix, who is deaf, scheduled an appointment with Advanced Urology after discovering blood in her urine. Although she requested an American Sign Language interpreter, Advanced Urology ultimately hired someone who took three years of sign language in high school and never interpreted in a professional setting, thereby causing significant communication difficulties. The Eleventh Circuit “assume[d] without deciding that Advanced Urology violated Nix’ right to effective communication” under the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act. Yet Nix received no relief whatsoever because, according to the Eleventh Circuit, she failed to establish intentional discrimination. But “intentional discrimination is not an element of a prima case” of a civil rights claim under the applicable statutes. Powers v. MJB Acquisition Corp., 184 F.3d 1147, 1152 (10th Cir. 1999). The question presented is: Whether a discrimination plaintiff who can prove a legal violation is entitled to an award of nominal damages under Spending Clause legislation.