Skip to main content

Ovitsky v. California Department of Fair Employment & Housing

9th CircuitFebruary 27, 2015No. 13-55221
Defendant WinK12.com, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
O'Scannlain, Leavy, Fernandez
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The district court's dismissal of plaintiff's ADA and state law claims was affirmed on appeal. The court found that plaintiff failed to allege a real and immediate threat of repeated injury necessary for injunctive relief under the ADA.

What This Ruling Means

**Ovitsky v. California Department of Fair Employment & Housing - Court Ruling Summary** **What Happened:** This case involved a legal dispute between an individual named Ovitsky and the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH), which is the state agency responsible for enforcing employment discrimination laws. The case was heard by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015, suggesting it involved employment-related legal issues. **What the Court Decided:** Unfortunately, the specific outcome and details of the court's decision are not available from the provided information. The case appears to have involved employment law matters, but the exact ruling and reasoning cannot be determined from the limited excerpt available. **Why This Matters for Workers:** Without knowing the specific outcome, it's difficult to draw concrete lessons for workers. However, cases involving the DFEH typically relate to workplace discrimination, harassment, or other employment rights violations. Such cases generally help establish important precedents about how employment laws are interpreted and enforced. Workers should know that employment disputes can sometimes be appealed to higher courts, and these decisions can affect how similar workplace issues are handled in the future. *Note: More specific details about this ruling would be needed to provide a complete analysis of its impact on workers' rights.*

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

Similar Rulings

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
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

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.