Skip to main content

Deondre Raglin v. Ramone Raquel

C.D. Cal.September 13, 2024No. 8:24-cv-01715
Defendant WinGlobal Empire, LLC
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff's Bivens claim was dismissed with prejudice because the defendant was employed by a private contractor (Global Empire, LLC) rather than the federal government, and therefore cannot be sued under Bivens per Supreme Court precedent in Minneci v. Pollard.

What This Ruling Means

**Employee Loses Disability Accommodation Case Due to Contractor Status** Deondre Raglin sued his supervisor Ramone Raquel for failing to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability at work. Raglin worked for Global Empire, LLC, a private company that had contracts with the federal government. He believed his rights under federal law were violated when his employer didn't properly accommodate his needs. The court ruled in favor of the supervisor and dismissed Raglin's case completely. The judge determined that Raglin couldn't use a specific type of federal lawsuit called a "Bivens claim" because his supervisor worked for a private contractor, not directly for the federal government. Under Supreme Court rules, this type of legal action can only be used against actual federal employees, not private company workers—even if that company works for the government. This ruling matters for workers because it highlights an important limitation in disability rights protection. If you work for a private company that contracts with the federal government, you may have fewer legal options when pursuing certain types of discrimination claims compared to direct government employees. Workers in similar situations should understand which laws apply to their specific employment arrangement and consider alternative legal remedies under different federal or state disability laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.