Skip to main content

Johnson v. Or. Bureau of Labor & Indus.

Or. Ct. App.February 22, 2018No. A158278Cited 2 times
Defendant WinDuck Stop Market$60,000 at issue
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Devore, Hadlock, Powers
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 Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed BOLI's final order finding that the store owner violated Oregon's disability discrimination statute by refusing service to a customer with a disability accompanied by service dogs, and upheld the $60,000 damages award.

What This Ruling Means

# Johnson v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries **What Happened** A customer with a disability who used service dogs was refused service at Duck Stop Market. The store owner did not allow the customer to enter with their service animals. The customer filed a complaint claiming disability discrimination and failure to accommodate under Oregon law. **What the Court Decided** The Oregon Court of Appeals sided with the customer. The court confirmed that Duck Stop Market violated Oregon's disability discrimination law by refusing service. The court upheld a $60,000 damages award to compensate the customer for the harm caused. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling strengthens protections for people with disabilities. It confirms that businesses cannot deny service based on disability status or the presence of service animals. While this case involved a customer rather than an employee, it demonstrates Oregon courts take disability rights seriously and will impose significant financial penalties on businesses that discriminate. The substantial damages award signals that discrimination violations carry real consequences, encouraging employers and business owners to properly accommodate people with disabilities.

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.