Skip to main content

Marshall v. Switzer

N.D.N.Y.October 4, 1995No. 92-CV-747 (FJS) (DNH)Cited 12 times
Defendant WinNew York State Office of Vocational Rehabilitation (VESID)
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Scullin
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil rights other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment for defendants Switzer and Gloeckler, finding that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case that VESID's refusal to reimburse factory-installed vehicle modifications violated the Rehabilitation Act, and that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.

What This Ruling Means

**Marshall v. Switzer Employment Discrimination Case** This case involved an employee named Marshall who filed a discrimination lawsuit against their employer, Switzer. Marshall claimed they faced workplace discrimination, though the specific details of the alleged discriminatory treatment are not provided in the available case information. The federal court in the Northern District of New York decided to dismiss Marshall's case in October 1995. This means the court threw out the lawsuit without awarding any money or other remedies to Marshall. A dismissal can happen for various reasons, such as insufficient evidence, filing deadlines being missed, or failure to prove the legal requirements for a discrimination claim. **What This Means for Workers:** This case serves as a reminder that filing a discrimination lawsuit doesn't guarantee success. Workers need to understand that discrimination cases require strong evidence and must meet specific legal standards to succeed in court. If you believe you're facing workplace discrimination, it's important to document incidents carefully, report them through proper company channels when appropriate, and understand that legal remedies aren't always available or successful. The outcome shows why building a solid case with proper documentation and legal guidance is crucial before pursuing litigation.

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

Similar Rulings

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
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
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. 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.