Skip to main content

Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort

D. Colo.January 11, 1996No. 1:95-cv-02152Cited 15 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Brimmer
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
790 Other labor litigation
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to AccommodateBreach of Contract

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed on her ADA claim that the Resort's policy requiring disclosure of legal prescription medications violated the ADA's prohibition on disability-related inquiries without demonstrating job-related necessity. Defendant prevailed on plaintiff's common law privacy and public policy claims.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** An employee at Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort challenged the company's policy that required workers to disclose all their legal prescription medications to their employer. The employee argued this policy violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and invaded her privacy. **What the Court Decided** The court sided with the employee on her main claim. It ruled that the resort's blanket policy requiring disclosure of prescription medications violated the ADA because employers cannot ask disability-related questions unless they can prove those questions are necessary for the specific job. However, the court rejected her other claims about privacy violations and public policy. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects workers' medical privacy rights. Employers cannot automatically demand to know what prescription medications you take just because you work there. They can only ask about medications if they can show a clear, job-related reason why they need that information. This gives workers important protection against overly broad medical inquiries that could lead to discrimination based on health conditions or disabilities.

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

Similar Rulings

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
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

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.