Skip to main content

Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp.

4th CircuitJanuary 21, 1997No. 96-1555, 96-1556Cited 132 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Russell, -Michael, Motz
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Kinney Shoe Corporation, holding that while the employer discharged the employee because of his disability (epileptic seizures), the employee was not a qualified individual able to perform an essential job function (maintaining store security) even with reasonable accommodation.

What This Ruling Means

**Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp. - What Workers Should Know** This case involved an employment dispute between an employee named Martinson and Kinney Shoe Corporation. While the specific details of what triggered the lawsuit aren't provided in the available information, it was an employment law matter that made its way to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1997. **What the Court Decided** The court dismissed Martinson's case, meaning the employee lost and received no money or other remedies. The dismissal indicates that either the court found the employee's claims had no legal merit, or there were procedural issues that prevented the case from moving forward. **What This Means for Workers** While the limited details make it difficult to draw specific lessons, this case serves as a reminder that not all employment disputes result in victory for workers, even when they reach higher courts. Employment law cases can be dismissed for various reasons - from failing to meet legal requirements to missing important deadlines for filing claims. Workers considering legal action should understand that success isn't guaranteed and should carefully evaluate their cases with qualified legal counsel before proceeding.

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.