Skip to main content

Shaywitz v. American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology

S.D.N.Y.December 17, 2009No. 09 Civ. 4387(VM)Cited 10 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
675 F. Supp. 2d 376, 22 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1423, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119485, 2009 WL 4932714
Judge(s)
Victor Marrero
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 granted the Board's motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court found Shaywitz had standing to bring his ADA claim for injunctive relief but dismissed his Sherman Act antitrust claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

What This Ruling Means

**Shaywitz v. American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology: Mixed Court Ruling on Doctor's Disability Claims** Dr. Shaywitz sued the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology, claiming the organization discriminated against him based on his disability and failed to provide reasonable accommodations. He also brought antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, suggesting the Board illegally restricted competition. The federal court delivered a split decision. The judge allowed Shaywitz's disability discrimination case to move forward, finding he had the right to seek changes to the Board's policies (called "injunctive relief"). However, the court dismissed his antitrust claims, ruling the court lacked authority to hear those particular arguments. This case matters for workers because it shows that professional licensing boards and certification organizations can be held accountable under disability laws. Workers who face discrimination from these powerful gatekeeping organizations may have legal options to challenge unfair treatment. The ruling demonstrates that even when some claims fail, workers can still pursue disability rights violations. However, it also shows the importance of bringing the right type of legal claim in the proper court, as some arguments may be dismissed on technical grounds rather than their merits.

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.