Skip to main content

Coleman v. Keebler Co.

INNDFebruary 5, 1998No. 1:96-cv-00407Cited 8 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Cosbey
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil rights jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment
State
Indiana

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted O'Boisie's motion for summary judgment, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA and could not hold O'Boisie liable as a successor employer for Keebler's alleged discrimination.

What This Ruling Means

**Coleman v. Keebler Co. - Employment Discrimination Case** This case involved a worker named Coleman who sued both Keebler Company and O'Boisie Corporation, claiming disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The situation became complicated when O'Boisie Corporation took over operations from Keebler, raising questions about which company could be held responsible for the alleged discrimination. The court ruled in favor of the companies and dismissed Coleman's case entirely. The judge found that Coleman failed to prove the basic elements needed for a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Additionally, the court determined that O'Boisie Corporation could not be held legally responsible for any discrimination that may have occurred while Keebler was the employer, even though O'Boisie later took over the business. This case highlights important challenges workers face in disability discrimination lawsuits. Workers must present strong evidence to prove their case, including showing they have a qualifying disability, can perform essential job functions, and faced discrimination because of their disability. The ruling also demonstrates that when companies change ownership, the new employer may not always be liable for the previous employer's actions.

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

Similar Rulings

Vega
2nd CircuitSep 2015
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1941
Plaintiff Win
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.