Skip to main content

Moore v. LaSalle Corrections Inc

W.D. La.October 3, 2025No. 3:16-cv-01007
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
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's constitutional due process and equal protection claims challenging the disciplinary procedures at a civil commitment facility.

What This Ruling Means

**Moore v. LaSalle Corrections Inc: Court Dismisses Employee's Claims** This case involved an employee who worked at the Virginia Center for Behavioral Rehabilitation, a facility that houses people who have been civilly committed (meaning they were ordered by a court to receive treatment rather than being sent to prison). The employee, Moore, sued after being fired, claiming wrongful termination and that his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations for a disability. He also argued that the facility's disciplinary procedures violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. The court ruled entirely in favor of the employer, LaSalle Corrections Inc., granting their request for summary judgment. This means the court decided there wasn't enough evidence for Moore's claims to proceed to trial, and dismissed the case completely. The court specifically rejected Moore's constitutional claims about the facility's disciplinary procedures. This decision is significant for workers because it shows how challenging it can be to win wrongful termination and accommodation cases, especially when working for companies that operate government facilities. Workers need strong evidence to support their claims, and constitutional arguments may not always apply in employment disputes at specialized facilities.

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

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB
U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938
Mixed Result
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951
Remanded
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
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded

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.