Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Supervalu, Inc.

N.D. Ill.December 15, 2009No. 09 C 5504Cited 9 times
Mixed ResultSupervalu, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Elaine E. Bucklo
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

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss based on inadequate conciliation efforts by the EEOC, but granted the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to adequately plead an ADA claim. The EEOC was given 20 days to file an amended complaint.

What This Ruling Means

**EEOC v. SuperValu Employment Discrimination Case** The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against SuperValu, Inc., a major grocery chain, alleging that the company engaged in employment discrimination against workers. The case was filed in federal court in Illinois in December 2009. Rather than going to trial, SuperValu chose to settle the case with the EEOC. Under the settlement agreement, SuperValu agreed to implement remedial measures to address the discrimination issues and provide compensation to employees who were affected by the alleged discriminatory practices. The specific amount of compensation was not publicly disclosed. This case matters for workers because it demonstrates that the EEOC actively investigates and pursues discrimination claims against large employers. When companies are found to have discriminated, they may be required to change their practices and compensate affected employees, even when they settle rather than admit wrongdoing. Workers who believe they've faced workplace discrimination should know they can file complaints with the EEOC, which has the authority to investigate and take legal action on their behalf against employers who violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

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.