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

810 chars

As ASWAN admits, however, VCU was under no obliga-
tion 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 employ-
er’s revocation of gratuitous healthcare benefits did not vio-
late 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 pro-
vision (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