Skip to main content

Safiyyah Maalik v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 2

7th CircuitFebruary 9, 2006No. 05-2355Cited 25 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Easterbrook, Manion, Wood
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 Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal and held that the union is liable under Title VII § 703(d) for discriminating against the plaintiff in administering its apprenticeship training program by failing to take action against master mechanics who refused to provide on-the-job training based on race and sex.

What This Ruling Means

**Union Discriminated Against Worker in Training Program** Safiyyah Maalik, a woman seeking to become an elevator constructor, sued her union after experiencing discrimination during her apprenticeship training. Maalik claimed that master mechanics refused to provide her with proper on-the-job training because of her race and gender, and that the union failed to address this problem when she complained. Initially, a lower court dismissed her case. However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision and ruled in Maalik's favor. The appeals court found that the union violated federal civil rights law by discriminating against Maalik in how it administered its apprenticeship program. Specifically, the court held that the union was legally responsible for failing to take action against the master mechanics who refused to train her based on her race and sex. This ruling is important for workers because it establishes that unions have a legal duty to protect their members from discrimination during training programs. If supervisors or trainers refuse to properly train someone because of their race, gender, or other protected characteristics, the union cannot simply ignore the problem—they must take steps to stop the discrimination or face legal liability themselves.

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

Similar Rulings

Maalik, Safiyyah v. Int'l Union Elev 2
7th CircuitFeb 2006
Plaintiff Win
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.