Skip to main content

STANNARD v. Goldoro Developments Inc

S.D. Fla.August 25, 2025No. 9:24-cv-81521
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
710 Labor: Fair Standards
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment
State
Florida

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in part and denied in part on Franco's ADA accessibility claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding ramp slope compliance and interior accessibility. The court also granted summary judgment on 380 Second's indemnification crossclaim against Small Door, finding the lease required Small Door to comply with ADA requirements.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Franco sued Goldoro Developments Inc. and related companies over accessibility issues at a building, claiming they failed to properly accommodate people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The dispute centered on whether the building's ramp slopes and interior accessibility features met legal requirements for disabled individuals. **What the Court Decided:** The court issued a mixed ruling. It found there were genuine questions about whether the ramp slopes and interior accessibility features actually complied with ADA standards - meaning a jury will need to decide these facts at trial. However, the court did rule definitively on one issue: when 380 Second Avenue sued Small Door Gramercy for reimbursement of legal costs, the court sided with 380 Second, finding that Small Door's lease required them to handle ADA compliance issues. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that disability accommodation disputes often involve complex technical questions that courts take seriously. Workers with disabilities should know that ADA compliance isn't just about having ramps - the specific measurements and interior accessibility features matter too. The ruling also demonstrates that when multiple companies are involved in managing a workplace, there can be legal disputes over who's responsible for ensuring proper accommodations.

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.