Skip to main content

Quintell Etheridge v. Fedchoice Federal Credit Union

D.D.C.June 2, 2011No. Civil Action No. 2009-1923
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Gladys Kessler
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

DiscriminationWrongful TerminationFailure to AccommodateBreach of Contract

Outcome

Summary judgment was granted in favor of FedChoice Federal Credit Union on all claims. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a disability under the ADA, failed to show pretextual termination, and did not establish FMLA violations.

What This Ruling Means

**Quintell Etheridge v. Fedchoice Federal Credit Union** Quintell Etheridge sued his former employer, FedChoice Federal Credit Union, claiming the company illegally fired him due to discrimination and failed to provide reasonable accommodations for a disability. Etheridge also argued that his termination violated his employment contract and that the credit union broke family medical leave laws. The court ruled entirely in favor of FedChoice Federal Credit Union. The judge found that Etheridge could not prove he had a qualifying disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court also determined that Etheridge failed to show his firing was actually based on discrimination rather than legitimate workplace reasons. Additionally, the judge found no violations of family medical leave requirements. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights how challenging it can be to win employment discrimination lawsuits. Workers must provide strong evidence to prove they have a qualifying disability and that their employer's stated reasons for termination were fake excuses covering up discrimination. Simply claiming discrimination isn't enough – employees need concrete proof that bias, not legitimate work issues, led to their firing. Workers should document disability accommodations requests and keep detailed records of workplace interactions.

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

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.