Skip to main content

Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County

9th CircuitSeptember 10, 2003No. 02-15743Cited 729 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Beezer, Thomas, Clifton
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal
Circuit
9th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationRetaliationFailure to AccommodateHostile Work Environment

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's determination that Glendale Union High School District is not an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, allowing Shelley Savage's ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and state law disability discrimination claims to proceed.

Similar Rulings

Lutz
9th CircuitApr 2001
Remanded
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
Sheet Metal Workers
U.S. Supreme CourtJul 1986
Mixed Result
Killmer, Lane & Newman, LLP Mari Newman and Towards Justice v. BKP, Inc. Ella Bliss Beauty Bar LLC Ella
Colo.Sep 2023
Settlement

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.