Whether monetary damages and jury trials are available to plaintiffs alleging employment retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

No question identified. : APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO: Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: Under this Court’s Rules 13.5 and 22, Applicant Jeffrey B. Israelitt requests an extension of thirty (30) days in which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision on August 16, 2023. See Israelitt v. Enterprise Services LLC, 78 F.4th 647 (4th Cir. 2023); App. 1. The Court denied the petition for rehearing en banc on September 12, 2023. App 27. Unless extended, the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on December 11, 2023. With the requested extension, the petition would be due on January 13, 2024. This application is being filed more than 10 days before the petition is due. See S. Ct. R. 13.5. The jurisdiction of this Court will be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). In support of this application, applicant states: 1. This case is a serious candidate for review. It concerns whether money damages and a jury trial are available to plaintiffs alleging employment retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It requires the interpretation of the retaliation provision of the ADA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12203, the remedies provision of the ADA, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12117, and the remedies provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. Applicant worked as a senior architect in the Cybersecurity Solutions Group of Enterprise Services, LLC. App. 3. He requested minor accommodations for two work trips related to his Aa//ux rigiditis, a painful condition that impairs his ability to walk. App. 5-7. Following his requests, Enterprise Services excluded applicant from team meetings, removed him from his only billable project, issued him a performance warning requiring him to complete a two-person multi-month project within thirty days, and then immediately fired him thereafter when it wasn’t completed. Jd. 3. After exhausting his administrative remedies, wherein the EEOC found probable cause that the employer had engaged in discrimination and retaliation, applicant sued in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. As is relevant here, he alleged that his employer had retaliated against him in violation of Section 12203 (the ADA anti-retaliation provision). App. 19. His complaint sought monetary damages and demanded a jury trial. App. 3. The district judge denied Enterprise Services’ motion for summary judgment on applicant’s retaliation claim. Jd. But shortly before trial the district court granted Enterprise Services’ motion to strike applicant’s request for trial by jury. Jd. The district court acknowledged that courts in other circuits had held jury trials and awarded damages in ADA retaliation cases. However, it relied on two unpublished Fourth Circuit decisions to hold that no damages are authorized for ADA retaliation claims. The district court then conducted a bench trial and ultimately entered judgment against applicant because it found that “Israelitt failed to prove he was fired because he asked for disability accommodations.” Jd. 4. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court. Even though Section 12203(c) of the ADA states that the remedies in retaliation cases under the Act “shall be” the remedies available in cases involving discrimination on the basis of disability (which are brought under Section 12112), the Fourth Circuit held that monetary damages, while available in the latter category of cases, “are not a remedy ‘under’ § 12117”—the ADA’s remedy provision. App. 22. It then concluded that the “statutory silence” in Section 1981a regarding ADA retaliation claims (as opposed Section 12112 claims) means that “ADAretaliation plaintiffs cannot recover legal damages.” Id. 5. This case raises an importan