Skip to main content

Yamaguchi v. Title Guaranty Escrow Services, Inc

Haw.March 20, 2026No. SCWC-21-0000097
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
consent decree

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to AccommodateWrongful Termination

Outcome

Disability Rights New Mexico prevailed in its civil rights lawsuit challenging the New Mexico Corrections Department's de facto blanket ban on medication for opioid use disorder, resulting in a judicially enforceable settlement agreement requiring continuity of medication-assisted treatment for incarcerated individuals. The court granted in part plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** This case involved a civil rights lawsuit against the New Mexico Corrections Department. Disability Rights New Mexico challenged the department's practice of essentially banning all medication used to treat opioid addiction for people in prison. The organization argued this violated the rights of incarcerated individuals who needed these medications to treat their substance use disorder. **What the Court Decided:** The court sided with Disability Rights New Mexico. The parties reached a court-approved settlement agreement that requires the Corrections Department to continue providing medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction to people in prison. The court also awarded attorney fees to the winning side. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot have blanket policies that deny necessary medical treatment to people with disabilities, including addiction disorders. While this case involved a corrections setting, it strengthens the principle that workplaces must make reasonable accommodations for employees receiving medication-assisted treatment for substance use disorders. Employers cannot simply refuse to accommodate workers who are in recovery and following prescribed treatment plans. This helps protect workers' rights to receive proper medical care while maintaining their employment.

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.