Skip to main content

Teresita Pack v. Kmart Corporation, a Michigan Corporation Steve Nicholas, an Individual, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae

10th CircuitFebruary 4, 1999No. 97-7120Cited 133 times
Defendant WinKmart Corporation
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Brorby, Barrett, Ebel
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 Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law in favor of Kmart, holding that Pack failed to establish she was disabled under the ADA because her depression did not substantially limit major life activities, and even if it did, she failed to prove she was qualified for her pharmacy technician position.

What This Ruling Means

**Teresita Pack v. Kmart Corporation** This case involved Teresita Pack, who filed an employment lawsuit against Kmart Corporation and an individual manager named Steve Nicholas. The specific details of Pack's workplace dispute are not provided in the available information, but the case involved employment law claims that were significant enough for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to participate as a supporting party. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the case in February 1999. This means the court rejected Pack's claims and ruled in favor of Kmart. No damages were awarded to Pack, and the dismissal suggests either her claims lacked sufficient legal merit or failed to meet required legal standards. **What This Means for Workers:** This case demonstrates that not all employment disputes will succeed in court, even when they involve issues serious enough to attract EEOC attention. Workers should understand that winning employment lawsuits requires meeting specific legal requirements and having strong evidence to support their claims. The dismissal also shows that having a government agency like the EEOC support your case doesn't guarantee victory. Workers considering legal action should consult with employment attorneys to understand the strength of their potential claims before proceeding.

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

Similar Rulings

Marcoux-Norton
D. Vt.May 1993
Mixed Result
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

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.