Skip to main content

Terry Longland v. William Scotsman & Department Of Labor & Industries

Wash. Ct. App.November 30, 2020No. 79535-0
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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Unpublished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 AccommodateBreach of Contract

Outcome

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision upholding the suspension of Longland's industrial insurance benefits for failing to cooperate with vocational rehabilitation services. The employer's suspension of benefits was found to be properly procedurally executed and supported by medical evidence.

What This Ruling Means

**Terry Longland v. William Scotsman & Department of Labor & Industries** This case involved a dispute between Terry Longland and his employer, William Scotsman, with the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries also involved as a party. Based on the available information, this appears to be an employment-related matter that went through the Washington Court of Appeals in late 2020. Unfortunately, the court records available do not provide enough detail to explain what specific workplace issue triggered this lawsuit or what the court ultimately decided. The case involved employment law claims, but the nature of Longland's complaints against William Scotsman and the role of the Department of Labor & Industries remain unclear from the available documentation. **What This Means for Workers:** Without knowing the specific details or outcome of this case, it's difficult to draw concrete lessons. However, the case does illustrate that workers have legal options when they believe their employment rights have been violated. The involvement of the state Department of Labor & Industries suggests this may have involved workplace safety, workers' compensation, or wage and hour issues - areas where state agencies often investigate and enforce worker protections. Workers facing similar situations should document their concerns and consider consulting with employment attorneys or contacting their state labor department.

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.