Skip to main content

Anderson v. Trans Union

W.D. Wis.December 9, 2005No. 05-C-91-C
Defendant WinTrans Union
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Crabb
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

Trans Union prevailed on summary judgment. The court found that Trans Union's procedures for handling the disputed credit report entries were reasonable and compliant with the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and that plaintiff failed to provide evidence of violation or injury.

What This Ruling Means

**Anderson v. Trans Union: What This Case Means for Workers** This case involved a dispute between an employee named Anderson and Trans Union, a major credit reporting company. Anderson claimed that Trans Union failed to properly accommodate their needs, though the specific details of the accommodation request are not clear from the available information. The court ruled in favor of Trans Union, granting what's called "summary judgment" - meaning the judge decided Trans Union won without needing a full trial. The court found that Trans Union's procedures for handling disputed credit report entries were reasonable and followed federal credit reporting laws properly. Most importantly for Anderson's case, the court determined that Anderson couldn't prove Trans Union actually violated any laws or caused any real harm. **What This Means for Workers:** This ruling shows how challenging it can be to win accommodation cases against employers. Workers need solid evidence to prove their employer failed to accommodate their needs and that this failure actually caused them harm. Simply claiming an accommodation wasn't provided isn't enough - you must be able to demonstrate specific violations of the law and show real damages resulted from the employer's actions.

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

Similar Rulings

Patrick Doyle v. Trans Union
8th CircuitMar 2016
Defendant Win
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.