Skip to main content

Crabill, Jerry L. v. Trans Union Corp

7th CircuitJuly 30, 2001No. 00-2078
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Per Curiam
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

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Seventh Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment to Trans Union and remanded the case, holding that while the plaintiff failed to establish compensatory damages, he may be entitled to recover costs and attorneys' fees under the Fair Credit Reporting Act for proving a statutory violation, and the reasonableness of Trans Union's procedures is a factual question unsuitable for summary judgment.

What This Ruling Means

**Crabill v. Trans Union Corp: Court Gives Worker Another Chance in Credit Report Case** Jerry Crabill sued Trans Union, a major credit reporting company, claiming they failed to properly accommodate his needs under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The dispute centered on whether Trans Union followed reasonable procedures when handling credit information, which Crabill argued they did not. Initially, a lower court ruled in favor of Trans Union without going to trial, essentially dismissing Crabill's case. However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and sent the case back for further proceedings. The appeals court found that while Crabill couldn't prove he suffered financial damages, he might still be entitled to recover his legal costs and attorney fees if he could prove Trans Union violated the law. The court also determined that whether Trans Union's procedures were reasonable should be decided by a jury, not dismissed by a judge. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that even when you can't prove monetary damages, you may still be able to recover legal expenses if a company violates federal law. It also demonstrates that courts should let juries, not judges, decide whether a company's procedures were reasonable when disputes involve factual questions.

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

Similar Rulings

Jerry L. Crabill v. Trans Union, L.L.C.
7th CircuitJul 2001
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.