No Duty to Treat Away Emotional Distress: Fifth Circuit Limits a Common Title VII Defense

When workplace harassment causes severe emotional distress, does the law require the plaintiff to seek therapy or take medication to mitigate their damages? On July 9, 2026, the Fifth Circuit answered no. In EEOC v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc., the court held — for the first time in that circuit — that a Title VII plaintiff seeking emotional-distress compensatory damages owes no legal duty to mitigate those damages by seeking therapy, medication, or other treatment. The decision is binding only in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, but it matters to employers and employees beyond those states, including here in Georgia and across the Eleventh Circuit.

The case. Sarah Budd worked as a parts clerk for SkyWest at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. Her coworkers and a supervisor subjected her to persistent sexual harassment — crude jokes, references to selling her for prostitution, and repeated talk of rape. Budd reported the conduct. Her supervisor shrugged it off, and the company's investigation interviewed witnesses at random, asked few follow-up questions, and disciplined almost no one. The harassment devastated Budd's health. A jury found that SkyWest failed to stop the harassment and awarded her $2.17 million — $2 million in punitive damages and $170,000 for emotional harm — later reduced to $300,000 under Title VII's damages cap. SkyWest appealed the verdict.

The holding. On appeal, SkyWest argued that the trial court should have instructed the jury to reduce Budd's emotional distress award because she could have eased her suffering by seeking treatment. The Fifth Circuit rejected that argument on two grounds.

First, the statutory text. Title VII expressly requires plaintiffs to mitigate back pay, but it says nothing about mitigating compensatory damages like emotional distress. When Congress imposes a requirement in one place and stays silent in another, courts presume the silence was deliberate. The court refused to add a duty Congress left out.

Second, the common law. A general duty to mitigate damages is well established. But the court found no established rule requiring plaintiffs to mitigate emotional distress specifically. Courts have long hesitated to tell injured people how to manage their own pain and suffering. With no clear common law tradition, the court would not read one into the statute.

The Fifth Circuit joined the majority of federal courts to reach the question, rejecting a lone Texas district court decision that had gone the other way.

Why it matters in Georgia and the Eleventh Circuit. The Fifth Circuit's ruling binds federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas — not Georgia, Florida, or Alabama. But the Eleventh Circuit has not squarely decided this issue, and SkyWest now stands as persuasive authority Georgia plaintiffs can cite – and defendants should expect to see in future briefing. Employers defending harassment claims should not assume they can shrink an emotional distress award by pointing to a plaintiff's decision to forgo therapy or medication.

That does not mean emotional-distress damages are uncontestable. Employers may still challenge causation, severity, credibility, documentation, statutory caps, and whether the alleged distress stems from unlawful conduct. What SkyWest undercuts is the narrow argument that a plaintiff’s recovery should be reduced simply because they declined therapy, medication, or similar treatment.

The takeaway is simple. In the Fifth Circuit, a harassment plaintiff’s choices about their own medical care will not reduce what they recover for the emotional harm they endured — and employers should not expect to reduce emotional-distress damages simply by arguing that the plaintiff declined treatment.

This post is for general information only and is not legal advice. For guidance on a specific situation, contact our firm.