Skip to main content

Lashaway v. Lashaway

Ohio Ct. App.March 31, 2026No. WM-25-009, WM-25-010
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
2026 Ohio 1168
Judge(s)
Duhart
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationFailure to AccommodateBreach of Contract

Outcome

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. ADA claims were dismissed with prejudice; remaining claims including ERISA, breach of insurance contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and malicious misrepresentation were dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend.

What This Ruling Means

I cannot provide a summary of this case because the information provided is incomplete and appears to contain errors. The case excerpt is empty, the outcome is listed as "unknown," and the filing date shows 2026, which is in the future. To properly explain how a court ruling affects workers, I would need: - The actual facts of the dispute - What legal issues were involved - The court's decision and reasoning - The specific employment law claims that were made The case name "Lashaway v. Lashaway" suggests this might be a family law matter rather than an employment dispute, which adds to the confusion. If you have access to the full court decision or a more complete summary of this case, I'd be happy to explain it in plain English. Alternatively, if you're looking for information about a different employment law case, please provide the complete details and I can help break down what it means for workers. For reliable information about employment law rights, workers should consult official government resources or speak with qualified employment attorneys.

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.