Skip to main content

State Ex Rel. North Dakota Department of Labor Ex Rel. Johnson v. Matrix Properties Corp.

N.D.July 21, 2009No. 20080224Cited 15 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Vande Walle, Kapsner, Sandstrom, Crothers, Maring
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 North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment dismissing the State's Fair Housing Act discrimination claim as time-barred under the two-year statute of limitations, holding that the limitations period began to run when the certificate of occupancy was issued in 1998, not when the plaintiff discovered the alleged design and construction defects in 2005.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The State of North Dakota, representing a worker named Johnson, sued Matrix Properties Corporation for discrimination and failure to accommodate under the Fair Housing Act. The case involved alleged design and construction defects in a building that made it inaccessible to people with disabilities. Johnson discovered these problems in 2005, but the building had received its certificate of occupancy (permission to be used) back in 1998. **What the Court Decided** The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled against Johnson and dismissed the case. The court found that the lawsuit was filed too late under the state's two-year statute of limitations. The court determined that the clock started ticking in 1998 when the building was approved for use, not in 2005 when Johnson actually discovered the accessibility problems. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows how strict time limits can prevent workers from pursuing valid discrimination claims. Even if you have a legitimate case, waiting too long to file can result in losing your right to seek justice. Workers should be aware that legal deadlines may start running before they even know they have a problem, making it crucial to consult with attorneys quickly when potential workplace discrimination is discovered.

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.