Skip to main content

Billings v. CoreCivic, Inc.

N.D. OhioSeptember 30, 2025No. 4:25-cv-00714
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationRetaliationHarassment

Outcome

Court denied UPS's motion to compel Rule 35 psychological examinations of plaintiffs, finding UPS failed to demonstrate good cause for seeking the examinations at this late stage of litigation, particularly where plaintiffs' emotional distress claims were apparent from the inception of the case.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** In Billings v. CoreCivic, Inc. (involving UPS as the employer), workers filed a lawsuit claiming they faced workplace discrimination and retaliation. They also said their employer's actions caused them severe emotional distress. As the case moved through court, UPS asked the judge to force the workers to undergo psychological examinations to evaluate their mental health claims. **What the Court Decided** The court said no to UPS's request for mandatory psychological exams. The judge ruled that UPS waited too long to ask for these examinations and failed to show good reason why they were necessary. Since the workers had been claiming emotional distress from the very beginning of their lawsuit, UPS should have requested these exams much earlier if they truly needed them. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects workers from having to submit to invasive psychological testing late in a lawsuit, especially when employers try to use such tactics as delay strategies. It shows that courts won't allow companies to spring surprise examination requests on workers who are already dealing with the stress of litigation. Workers can feel more confident that judges will scrutinize unreasonable employer demands for personal medical information.

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

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.