A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)

Citation: A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Parent Document: A Society Without a Name v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (2011)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2011-08-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/612506/a-society-without-a-name-v-commo... ↗

Full Text

808 chars

As ASWAN admits, however, VCU was under no obligation to help pay the cost of transporting homeless people to and from the Conrad Center. And retracting a gratuitous promise does not amount to a discriminatory act or an adverse action. See Stiltner v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 74 F.3d 1473, 1482-84 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) (holding that the employer’s revocation of gratuitous healthcare benefits did not violate ERISA’s anti-retaliation provision). Although Stiltner involves ERISA’s anti-retaliation provision (29 U.S.C. § 1140), that provision and the ADA’s retaliation *351provision (42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)) use the identical phrase — “discriminate against”— to describe what constitutes an adverse action, and Stiltner expressly held that revoking a gratuitous benefit does not fit within this language. Id.

Other Sections in This Document (158)

Full Text