Skip to main content

Lenkiewicz v. Donovan

D.D.C.November 30, 2015No. Civil Action No. 2013-0261Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Citation
146 F. Supp. 3d 46, 32 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 651, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160379
Judge(s)
Judge Royce C. Lamberth
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Civil
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

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in part on her 2009 relocation and parking accommodation requests related to her broken foot, while denying summary judgment on her printer request (which presented genuine disputes of material fact) and granting defendant's motion on the mold-related claim. The case involves jurisdictional issues resolved by intervening D.C. Circuit precedent.

What This Ruling Means

# Lenkiewicz v. Donovan: Employment Accommodation Ruling ## What Happened An employee at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requested workplace accommodations after breaking her foot. She asked for relocation to an accessible location, reserved parking, a printer for her work area, and relief from exposure to mold in her workplace. The employer denied or did not properly address these requests, leading to a legal dispute over whether the agency failed to accommodate her disability. ## What the Court Decided The court issued a mixed decision. It sided with the employee regarding her relocation and parking requests related to her broken foot injury. However, the court ruled against her on the printer request, finding the facts were unclear enough to require a trial. The court also dismissed her mold-related claim entirely. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case reinforces that employers must take reasonable accommodation requests seriously, especially for mobility-related injuries. However, it shows courts examine each request individually based on specific evidence. Workers should document accommodation requests in writing and the reasons they're needed, as unclear requests may not succeed in court.

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

Similar Rulings

Richardson v. Jackson
N.D. Ga.Feb 2008
Defendant Win
Adams
Fed. Cl.Sep 2007
Plaintiff 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

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.