Skip to main content

Farhner v. United Transportation Union Discipline Income Protection Program

6th CircuitMay 3, 2011No. 09-4431Cited 61 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Gilman, Griffin, Collier
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

Court affirmed summary judgment for the DIPP, holding that the Plan Administrator's denial of discharge benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because the plain language of the Plan explicitly excludes insubordination as a covered reason for discharge.

What This Ruling Means

**Farhner v. United Transportation Union Discipline Income Protection Program** This case involved a dispute between a worker named Farhner and the United Transportation Union's Discipline Income Protection Program. The specific details of what triggered the employment disagreement are not provided in the available information, but it appears to have been some kind of workplace issue that led to legal action. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the case in May 2011. However, the court did not actually decide whether Farhner was right or wrong about the underlying employment dispute. Instead, the case was thrown out on "procedural or jurisdictional grounds," which means there were technical legal problems that prevented the court from hearing the case on its merits. No monetary damages were awarded since the case never reached that stage. **What this means for workers:** This case serves as a reminder that even if you believe you have a valid employment complaint, technical legal requirements must be met for your case to be heard in court. These can include filing deadlines, proper paperwork, or proving the court has authority to hear your type of case. Workers should consult with employment attorneys early to ensure they follow all necessary procedures when pursuing legal claims.

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

Similar Rulings

Dawkins
N.D.N.Y.Jul 2024
Dismissed
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
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

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.