Skip to main content

Derogatis v. Bd. of Trs. of the Welfare Fund of the Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 15, 15a, 15C 15D, AFL-CIO

S.D. Ill.June 13, 2019No. No. 14 Civ. 8863 (CM)Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
McMahon
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

Breach of ContractFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

On remand from the Second Circuit, the district court denied both the Welfare Fund's motion for summary judgment on equitable relief and the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on fiduciary breach, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the Welfare Fund breached fiduciary duties and whether equitable relief (surcharge) is available.

What This Ruling Means

# Court Ruling Summary: Derogatis v. Board of Trustees **What Happened** A worker named Derogatis filed a lawsuit against a union health insurance fund, claiming the fund failed to properly accommodate his needs and broke its contract with him. The case went through appeals and was sent back to the lower court for further review. **What the Court Decided** The lower court ruled that the case should continue. The judge found there were still unanswered questions about whether the fund actually violated its duties to Derogatis and whether he deserved compensation. The court rejected both the fund's request to dismiss the case and Derogatis's request for immediate judgment in his favor. **Why This Matters** This ruling protects workers' right to have their cases fully heard in court. It means employers and benefit funds cannot easily dismiss lawsuits on paperwork alone—workers get their day in court to prove their claims. The decision also signals that courts take seriously whether funds that manage worker benefits are living up to their legal obligations to treat workers fairly.

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.