Summary
Sinapi Law recently secured a landmark ruling before the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Parente v. Lefebvre. Resolving an unsettled question of state law, the Court held that discrimination claims under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (RICRA) are officially "actions of tort." This crucial decision ensures that the state's broad waiver of sovereign immunity applies to civil rights cases—meaning state and government agencies can no longer use immunity defenses to shield themselves from discrimination liability under the RICRA.
Sinapi Law recently secured a significant ruling for our clients before the Rhode Island Supreme Court in Parente v. Lefebvre, No. 2024-387-M.P. The Court held that discrimination claims under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act of 1990 (RICRA) are “actions of tort” under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA) — meaning the state’s broad, existing statutory waiver of sovereign immunity applies to RICRA claims.
Background of the Case
Plaintiffs, formerly incarcerated at the Adult Correctional Institutions, filed suit alleging that the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) failed to meet their medical needs — denying them use of an elevator and forcing them to painfully climb metal stairways multiple times a day, and denying them elevation pillows and other items necessary to treat their injuries.
Among the claims in their complaint was a failure to provide reasonable accommodation/disability discrimination claim under RICRA. RIDOC denied the allegations and asserted immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.
The federal District Court denied RIDOC’s motion for summary judgment on the RICRA claim, reasoning that discrimination claims sound in tort and that Rhode Island’s general waiver of sovereign immunity therefore applied. RIDOC appealed, and the First Circuit Court of Appeals certified the underlying question to the Rhode Island Supreme Court: are RICRA discrimination claims “actions of tort” under the STCA?
The Court’s Ruling
The Rhode Island Supreme Court answered yes.
The Court relied on its recent decision in Preserve at Boulder Hills, LLC v. Kenyon, which broadly defined a tort as a civil wrong causing injury to person or property for which the law provides a damages remedy. Applying that definition, the Court held that:
- RICRA defines a legal duty and creates a cause of action for its breach, which fits squarely within the definition of a tort
- The claim did not arise under criminal, contract, or property law, but from RIDOC’s alleged failure to provide the “full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property” required by RICRA
- The claim was analogous to negligence or medical malpractice, both traditionally tort claims
- This result aligns with U.S. Supreme Court precedent holding that federal discrimination claims under the Fair Housing Act likewise sound in tort, because such statutes simply define a new legal duty and authorize courts to compensate plaintiffs for its breach
The Court rejected RIDOC’s argument that RICRA’s broad scope — covering contracting, licensing, real estate, and other areas — meant its claims couldn’t be treated as torts. The Court explained that whether a claim sounds in tort is a claim-specific inquiry, not a determination based on the statute as a whole.
Because RICRA claims sound in tort, they fall within the STCA’s sweeping waiver of sovereign immunity for “all actions of tort.” The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative and ordered the papers returned to the First Circuit for further proceedings.
Significance of the Decision
This decision resolves a previously unsettled question of state law with real consequences for anyone bringing a discrimination claim against the State of Rhode Island or its political subdivisions. Sovereign immunity has long been a threshold obstacle in civil rights litigation against government defendants. By confirming that RICRA claims are tort claims under the STCA, the Court has made clear that the state’s broad waiver of immunity extends to discrimination claims — not just conventional personal injury actions.
For Plaintiffs, and for the many people who rely on RICRA to hold state agencies accountable for discrimination, this ruling removes a significant immunity defense that state defendants have used to try to avoid liability.
Justice Robinson concurred in the result, emphasizing the role of stare decisis and the Court’s recent Preserve decision in compelling this outcome.
Sinapi Law represents individuals in civil rights, disability discrimination, and reasonable accommodation cases against government agencies and private employers throughout Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and federal courts in New England.
If you believe your rights have been violated by a state agency or other government entity, contact our Rhode Island civil rights lawyers at Sinapi Law.
