Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rexnord Industries, LLC

E.D. Wis.August 30, 2013No. Case No. 11-CV-777Cited 2 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Joseph
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court denied the EEOC's motion for summary judgment in a disability discrimination case brought on behalf of Danielle Sullivan, who was terminated by Rexnord Industries. The employer established that Sullivan posed a direct threat to safety due to her active seizure disorder and was not a qualified individual under the ADA, supporting the termination decision.

What This Ruling Means

# EEOC v. Rexnord Industries Settlement Summary ## What Happened The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that protects workers from discrimination, filed a lawsuit against Rexnord Industries. The agency claimed the company had violated employment discrimination laws. The specific nature of the discrimination was not detailed in the available case information. ## What the Court Decided Rather than going to trial, Rexnord Industries and the EEOC reached a settlement agreement. The company agreed to pay monetary compensation to affected workers and implement measures to prevent future discrimination—known as "injunctive measures." These measures typically include policy changes, training programs, or monitoring systems designed to ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws. ## Why This Matters for Workers This settlement demonstrates that the EEOC actively investigates and pursues discrimination complaints on behalf of workers. Even without a public trial, settlements can result in real financial compensation and meaningful workplace changes. This case shows that companies may face significant consequences for employment discrimination, encouraging employers to maintain fair workplace practices.

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.