Skip to main content

Schultz v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n

WISCTAPPSeptember 19, 2018No. Appeal No. 2017AP1169
Defendant WinManitowoc County
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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 court affirmed LIRC's dismissal of Schultz's disability discrimination complaint, finding that credible and substantial evidence supported the county's decision not to rehire him based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons such as poor attitude and work ethic, not his back condition.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Loses Disability Discrimination Case Against County Employer** This case involved a worker named Schultz who claimed that Manitowoc County refused to rehire him because of his back condition, which he said was disability discrimination. Schultz also argued that the county failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability. The court ruled against Schultz and sided with the county. The court found that there was strong evidence showing the county had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not rehiring Schultz. These reasons included concerns about his poor attitude and weak work ethic - not his back condition. The court determined that the county's decision was based on these performance-related issues rather than his disability. This case shows workers that winning a disability discrimination lawsuit requires proving that their disability was the real reason for negative employment actions. Even if a worker has a disability, employers can still make decisions based on legitimate work performance issues like attitude, productivity, or work quality. Workers need strong evidence that their disability - not their job performance - was the primary factor behind an employer's decision. Simply having a disability and facing adverse employment action is not enough to win a discrimination case.

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

Similar Rulings

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
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded

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.