## Facts

- Steeltek used an employment application asking whether an applicant had received workers’ compensation or disability income and whether the applicant had physical defects limiting job performance.
- The parties agreed the questions violated the ADA’s bar on certain pre-employment medical inquiries under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(2)(A).
- Randy Griffin applied for employment, answered the workers’ compensation/disability-income question, and left the physical-defects question unanswered.
- Steeltek did not hire Griffin and presented evidence it made the decision for non-disability-related reasons, including Griffin’s lack of required experience and Steeltek’s decision to rehire a recently laid-off, experienced employee.
- Griffin sued seeking damages based on the unlawful inquiries.
- Steeltek later discontinued the challenged application questions.
- A jury found Griffin suffered no injury from the unlawful questions and that they played no role in the hiring decision, returning a defense verdict.
- After trial, Griffin sought (1) judgment as a matter of law awarding nominal damages, (2) a new trial limited to punitive damages, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 based on a “catalyst” theory; the district court denied each request.

## Issues

1. Whether an employer’s violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(2)(A), without proof of resulting injury, requires an award of nominal damages.
2. Whether punitive damages may be awarded for such a violation when the plaintiff receives no actual or nominal damages.
3. Whether a plaintiff who loses on the merits may recover attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 because the lawsuit allegedly prompted the employer to stop the unlawful practice.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment and post-trial orders.
- The court held a § 12112(d)(2)(A) violation does not automatically entitle a plaintiff to nominal damages absent proof of compensable injury.
- The court held punitive damages are unavailable where no actual or nominal damages are awarded on the underlying claim.
- The court held Griffin was not a prevailing party and could not recover fees or costs based only on Steeltek’s voluntary discontinuation of the questions.

## Legal Principles

- A technical violation of the ADA’s pre-employment inquiry restrictions, standing alone, does not mandate monetary relief; damages require proof of compensable harm.
- Nominal damages are not automatic for a statutory violation when the factfinder determines the plaintiff suffered no injury from the unlawful act.
- Punitive damages under the ADA require a predicate award of at least nominal or actual damages; they cannot stand independently after a no-injury finding.
- Attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 12205 require prevailing-party status, which generally demands judicially sanctioned relief altering the parties’ legal relationship; voluntary cessation of challenged conduct is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a defense verdict where unlawful pre-employment disability-related questions caused no injury, ruling that nominal damages are not required without compensable harm, punitive damages cannot be awarded without actual or nominal damages, and fees are unavailable to a nonprevailing plaintiff based solely on voluntary changes by the employer.


Griffin v. Steeltek, Inc., 261 F.3d 1026 (10th Cir. 2001)