Skip to main content

Adams v. Rice

D.C. CircuitJuly 18, 2008No. 07-5101Cited 106 times
Plaintiff WinState Department

Case Details

Judge(s)
Henderson, Tatel, Kayanaugh
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal
Circuit
DC Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The D.C. Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment for the State Department, holding that Adams had a disability record under the Rehabilitation Act based on her breast cancer diagnosis and medical history, and remanding for further proceedings on her discrimination claim.

What This Ruling Means

**Adams v. Rice: Court Rules in Favor of State Department Employee with Cancer History** This case involved a State Department employee named Adams who sued her employer for disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Adams had a history of breast cancer and argued that the State Department treated her unfairly because of her medical condition. The lower court initially ruled in favor of the State Department, dismissing Adams' case entirely. However, Adams appealed to a higher court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In July 2008, this appeals court overturned the lower court's decision. The appeals court ruled that Adams did have a disability under federal law (the Rehabilitation Act) based on her breast cancer diagnosis and medical history. The court sent the case back to the lower court to properly consider Adams' discrimination claims. This decision is important for workers because it clarifies that having a history of serious medical conditions like cancer can qualify as a disability under federal law, even if the condition is currently in remission. This means employees with past medical conditions are protected from workplace discrimination and may be entitled to reasonable accommodations from their employers.

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

Similar Rulings

Wright
D.D.C.Aug 2007
Defendant Win
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

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