Skip to main content

Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. Labor & Industry Review Commission

WISJuly 11, 2003No. 02-0815Cited 30 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Crooks, Prosser, Wilcox, Sykes
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed that Crystal Lake Cheese Factory discriminated against employee Susan Catlin by refusing to provide reasonable accommodations for her disability. The court held that the employer could have modified her job duties and made workplace modifications without undue hardship.

What This Ruling Means

**Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. Labor & Industry Review Commission** This case involved Susan Catlin, a worker at Crystal Lake Cheese Factory who had a disability that required workplace accommodations. When Catlin asked her employer to make reasonable changes to her job duties and workspace so she could continue working, the cheese factory refused to provide these accommodations. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled against Crystal Lake Cheese Factory, finding that the company illegally discriminated against Catlin. The court determined that the requested accommodations were reasonable and would not have created an undue hardship for the business. The factory could have modified Catlin's job responsibilities and made necessary workplace adjustments without significant difficulty or expense. This ruling is important for workers with disabilities because it reinforces their right to request reasonable accommodations at work. Employers cannot simply refuse accommodation requests without properly evaluating whether the changes would create genuine hardship. The decision shows that courts will protect disabled workers when employers fail to engage in good faith discussions about workplace modifications. Workers facing similar situations should know that employers have a legal duty to consider and provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would truly burden the business.

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.