Skip to main content

Hewitt v. Union Oil Co. of California, Inc.

9th CircuitAugust 16, 2002No. No. 01-35013; D.C. No. CY-99-00005-HRH
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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 Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and remanded the case for trial, finding that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the plaintiff had a disability under the Alaska Human Rights Act, specifically regarding whether sleep disorders substantially limited major life activities.

What This Ruling Means

**Sleep Disorder Discrimination Case Sent Back for Trial** This case involved an employee who sued Union Oil Company of California for disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The worker claimed the company discriminated against them because of sleep disorders, violating Alaska's anti-discrimination laws. The lower court had initially dismissed the case without a trial, ruling in favor of the employer. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed this decision. The appeals court found there were important factual questions that still needed to be resolved, particularly whether the employee's sleep disorders qualified as a disability under Alaska law. The key issue was whether these sleep problems significantly limited major life activities enough to be considered a legal disability. The court sent the case back to the lower court for a full trial to determine these facts. **What this means for workers:** This ruling shows that sleep disorders can potentially qualify as disabilities deserving workplace protection. Workers with sleep conditions shouldn't assume they lack legal protections. If you believe you've faced discrimination due to sleep disorders or other health conditions, the specific facts of your situation matter greatly. Courts will examine whether your condition substantially affects major life activities when determining if discrimination laws apply.

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.