Skip to main content

Marcum v. Consolidated Freightways

N.D. OhioMay 14, 1999No. 5:98-cv-02799
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Gwin
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
State
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted defendant Consolidated Freightways' motion for summary judgment, finding that plaintiff Marcum was neither disabled nor a qualified individual under the ADA, did not suffer a discriminatory termination, and was not entitled to permanent accommodation in the modified work program.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Employee Marcum sued his former employer, Consolidated Freightways, claiming the trucking company discriminated against him and failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability. Marcum argued he was wrongfully terminated and should have been given permanent modifications to help him continue working. **What the Court Decided** The court ruled in favor of Consolidated Freightways and dismissed Marcum's case entirely. The judge found that Marcum was not legally disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and was not a "qualified individual" who could perform essential job functions. The court also determined that his termination was not discriminatory and that he had no right to permanent placement in the company's modified work program. **Why This Matters for Workers** This case highlights important limitations in disability discrimination claims. Workers must meet specific legal definitions of "disabled" under the ADA to receive protection. Additionally, employers are not required to provide permanent accommodations through modified duty programs - these are often temporary arrangements. Workers should understand that successfully proving disability discrimination requires showing they can perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodations, and that temporary work modifications don't guarantee permanent job security.

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.