Skip to main content

Casey A. Kennedy v. Superior Printing Company Local 419m Graphic Communications International Union

6th CircuitJune 15, 2000No. 99-3304Cited 57 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Daughtrey, Magill, Merritt
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal
Circuit
6th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Superior Printing Company was affirmed. Kennedy's ADA claim was barred by res judicata based on the prior arbitration award, and his wrongful discharge claim also failed.

What This Ruling Means

**Kennedy v. Superior Printing Company - Court Ruling Summary** Casey Kennedy, an employee at Superior Printing Company, sued his employer claiming wrongful termination and failure to accommodate his disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Kennedy had previously gone through union arbitration over his termination and lost that case. The federal appeals court ruled against Kennedy on all claims. The court found that his ADA claim was blocked because he had already lost a prior arbitration hearing on the same issues - a legal principle that prevents people from relitigating the same dispute twice. His wrongful discharge claim also failed to meet legal requirements. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights an important limitation workers should understand: if you lose a union arbitration over your termination, you may be barred from later filing a federal lawsuit on the same issues, even under disability rights laws. Workers with potential ADA claims should carefully consider whether to pursue arbitration or federal court, as choosing one path may close off the other. It's also a reminder that union arbitration decisions can have significant consequences beyond the immediate workplace dispute. Workers facing termination should understand all their options and potential limitations before deciding how to proceed.

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

Similar Rulings

Daniel J. Ciambriello v. County of Nassau, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Russell Rinchiuso, Richard Cotugno and Ron Roeill
2nd CircuitJun 2002
Mixed Result
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
Giovanni Molina-Estrada v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
9th CircuitJun 2002
Defendant Win
Ramirez
Tex.Dec 2004
Defendant Win

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.