Skip to main content

Sampson v. AT & T Corp.

N.D. Ga.July 13, 1998No. 1:98-cv-00724Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Orinda D. Evans
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil rights jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment
State
Georgia

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing plaintiff's ADA claim as time-barred under the federal 90-day statute of limitations, which cannot be saved by Georgia's state renewal statute. The court denied defendants' other motions and allowed discovery to proceed on plaintiff's remaining FMLA and state law intentional infliction of emotional distress claims.

What This Ruling Means

**Sampson v. AT&T Corp. - Employment Discrimination Case** This case involved a discrimination lawsuit filed by an employee named Sampson against telecommunications giant AT&T Corporation in 1998. Sampson claimed that AT&T discriminated against them in the workplace, though the specific details of the alleged discrimination are not provided in the available court records. The court ultimately dismissed Sampson's case, meaning the judge ruled against the employee and in favor of AT&T. No damages were awarded to Sampson, and the lawsuit was thrown out of court. The dismissal suggests that either the court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claims, or there were procedural issues that prevented the case from moving forward. **What this means for workers:** This case demonstrates that simply filing a discrimination lawsuit doesn't guarantee success. Workers who believe they've faced workplace discrimination need to gather strong evidence and ensure their claims meet legal requirements. While this particular case was unsuccessful for the employee, it doesn't mean discrimination claims can't succeed - it highlights the importance of having solid documentation and potentially seeking legal counsel when pursuing such cases against large employers.

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.