Skip to main content

Miller v. Amerada Hess Corporation

Ala.December 1, 2000No. 1990431Cited 8 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Cook, Maddox
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

Wrongful TerminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants on all claims. The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal for failure to timely file a notice of appeal, finding no excusable neglect under Rule 77(d).

What This Ruling Means

**Miller v. Amerada Hess Corporation: Employment Case Summary** This case involved a worker named Miller who sued several shipping companies, including Keystone Tankship Corporation and Marine Transport Lines, claiming he was wrongfully fired and that his employer failed to accommodate his needs. Miller argued that his termination was improper and that the company should have made reasonable adjustments for him at work. The court ruled entirely in favor of the employers. Initially, a trial court threw out all of Miller's claims through summary judgment, meaning the court decided the employers won without needing a full trial. When Miller tried to appeal this decision to a higher court, he missed the deadline for filing his appeal paperwork. The appeals court dismissed his case because he filed too late and couldn't show a good enough reason for the delay. This case highlights important procedural lessons for workers. Even if you believe you have a strong case against your employer, legal deadlines are strictly enforced. Missing filing deadlines can end your case permanently, regardless of the merits of your claims. Workers considering legal action should work with experienced employment attorneys who understand these critical time limits and can ensure all paperwork is filed properly and on time.

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.