Skip to main content

Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. Labor & Industry Review Commission

WISJuly 17, 2007No. 2004AP1550Cited 30 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Butler, Prosser, Roggensack
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the Labor and Industry Review Commission's determination that Stoughton Trailers discriminated against an employee with migraine headaches by terminating him because of his disability and failing to reasonably accommodate it, despite the company's claim of following a neutral attendance policy.

What This Ruling Means

**Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. Labor & Industry Review Commission (Wisconsin, 2007)** This case involved a worker at Stoughton Trailers who suffered from migraine headaches. The employee missed work due to his migraines, and the company fired him for poor attendance. The company claimed it was simply following its standard attendance policy that applied to all workers equally. The worker filed a disability discrimination complaint, arguing that the company should have made reasonable accommodations for his medical condition instead of firing him. The Labor and Industry Review Commission agreed with the worker, finding that the company had discriminated against him. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld this decision, ruling that even though the company had a neutral attendance policy, it still discriminated by firing the worker because of his disability-related absences and by failing to explore reasonable accommodations. This ruling is important for workers because it shows that employers cannot hide behind "neutral" policies to avoid their duty to accommodate disabilities. If you have a medical condition that affects your work attendance, your employer must consider reasonable accommodations before taking disciplinary action, even if you've exceeded their standard attendance requirements.

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

Similar Rulings

Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. Labor and Indus. Review Comm'n.
WISNov 2006
Unresolvable
LIRC
WISCTAPPJul 2006
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
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
Sandra Cortez v. Trans Union
3rd CircuitAug 2010
Plaintiff Win

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.