By Jessie Weber

On March 11, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, ordered the trial court to reinstate a jury verdict awarding $242,500 in damages to two blind students who experienced disability discrimination while enrolled at Los Angeles City College, part of the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). The decision confirms that individuals with disabilities can recover significant compensatory damages for lost opportunities caused by discrimination—even where emotional distress damages are unavailable.

Brown, Goldstein & Levy represented the plaintiffs-appellants in this case: blind students Roy Payan and Portia Mason, along with the National Federation of the Blind and the National Federation of the Blind of California. Although LACCD had approved Mr. Payan and Ms. Mason for accommodations, both students encountered widespread accessibility barriers that limited their ability to participate in coursework and campus life. Throughout their time at LACCD, Mr. Payan and Ms. Mason faced problems like inaccessible course software, delayed or inaccessible textbooks and course materials, inaccessible library resources, difficulties obtaining testing accommodations, inaccessible school websites and registration systems, and discriminatory steering away from certain courses.

At trial, Mr. Payan and Ms. Mason testified about how these access barriers effectively shut them out of the educational experience their peers enjoyed—rendering them spectators instead of active participants in their education. The jury ultimately found that LACCD had violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 14 different ways—9 of them intentionally—and awarded compensatory damages of $218,500 to Mr. Payan and $24,000 to Ms. Mason.

Because of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, eliminating the availability of emotional distress damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (from which Title II of the ADA pulls its remedies), the district court decided to dramatically reduce the jury’s award to only $1,650 for Mr. Payan and $0 for Mason, concluding that the evidence supported only minimal out-of-pocket expenses. The plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed this decision.

The Ninth Circuit held that although emotional distress damages are not available until Title II of the ADA, the jury’s damages award could properly be categorized as compensation for the plaintiffs’ lost educational opportunities. The court explained that the jury had heard extensive testimony about how accessibility barriers prevented the plaintiffs from fully engaging in their classes and educational programs—for example, by being unable to access course materials, participate in discussions, or complete assignments due to inaccessible software.

Critically, the evidence supporting these damages came primarily from the plaintiffs’ own testimony about the educational opportunities they lost. The plaintiffs did not present additional economic analyses or expert testimony quantifying the financial value of those lost opportunities. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the jury could reasonably rely on this testimony to determine compensatory damages for lost opportunities and that the award was neither excessive nor speculative. The court therefore held that the district court abused its discretion in reducing the verdict and ordered the district court to reinstate the jury’s verdict.

This ruling is not only important for Mr. Payan and Ms. Mason—who have been waiting years for justice—but for all individuals challenging disability discrimination. This is the first decision in the country to find that significant damages are appropriate compensation for plaintiffs’ lost opportunities. At a time when many thought that only economic or nominal damages were available in light of the Supreme Court eliminating the availability of emotional distress damages in disability discrimination cases against public or federally-funded entities, the Ninth Circuit’s decision here makes clear that institutions that deny individuals with disabilities equal opportunities will face costly consequences.

The decision is also notable in establishing that plaintiffs’ testimony alone can support significant damages awards for their lost opportunities. The court rejected the notion that plaintiffs must present complex economic or expert evidence to prove the value of educational opportunities they were wrongfully denied.

This ruling should apply with equal force to other nondiscrimination statutes that share the same remedial framework: Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (prohibiting disability discrimination by recipients of federal funding), Title IX (prohibiting sex-based discrimination in education by federal funding recipients), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin by federal funding recipients).

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Payan v. LACCD places all public entities and federal funding recipients on notice: discrimination still carries serious consequences. Institutions that fail to provide equal access risk substantial financial liability. Our hope is that public entities and federal funding recipients will respond to this new precedent by proactively ensuring that they are providing an accessible experience and equal opportunities to individuals with disabilities.

Brown, Goldstein & Levy is a nationally recognized leader when it comes to protecting the rights of individuals with disabilities. If you or a loved one has a disability and encounters discrimination, consider contacting us today to discuss your situation.

For entities looking to proactively comply with federal disability rights law, we offer Inclusivity Strategic Consulting, part of Brown, Goldstein & Levy.  At Inclusivity, we recognize that “fix it and forget it” doesn’t work for accessible websites and other technologies, because they are always growing and changing. Due to the dynamic environment of websites and other technologies, it is essential to have an ongoing strategy. We advise organizations on internal policies, procedures, accountability mechanisms, and procurement systems that make sure technology starts accessible and stays accessible.