Skip to main content

Heston v. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.

M.D.N.C.December 12, 2003No. 1:02 CV 417Cited 5 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Tilley, Eliason
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court denied the employer's motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff's ADA claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d) to proceed. The court found that former employees can sue for violations of medical confidentiality provisions regarding job references, even if they are not current employees or job applicants.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Rules Former Employees Can Sue Over Medical Privacy Violations in Job References** This case involved a former employee of Underwriters Laboratories who sued the company for discrimination and failing to provide workplace accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The key issue was whether someone who no longer works for a company can still sue if the employer illegally shares their private medical information when giving job references to potential new employers. The court decided in favor of the former employee, ruling that the lawsuit could move forward. Most importantly, the judge found that workers don't have to be current employees or active job applicants to sue their former employer for violating medical privacy rules when providing references. The company had tried to get the case thrown out, but the court refused. This ruling matters because it protects workers' medical privacy even after they leave their job. If your former employer shares confidential health information about you with potential new employers, you may have the right to sue them under the ADA. This gives workers important protection against having their private medical details used against them in future job searches.

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

Similar Rulings

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
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded

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.