Skip to main content

Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

9th CircuitApril 26, 2011No. 09-15057, 09-15060Cited 158 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Thomas, Ikuta, Restani
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal
Circuit
9th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lucent Technologies, holding that the employer did not violate the California Fair Employment and Housing Act by terminating the employee after his disability period expired, as Lucent reasonably accommodated his restrictions and demonstrated legitimate, non-pretextual reasons for termination.

Similar Rulings

Javery v. Lucent Technologies, Inc. Long Term Disability Plan for Management or LBA Employees
6th CircuitFeb 2014
Dismissed
Adams
6th CircuitJul 2008
Defendant Win
Dolby Laboratories, Inc. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Federal CircuitAug 2007
Unresolvable
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

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.