No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Summary judgment granted for defendant Wyndham on all claims. Plaintiff failed to establish he was disabled under the ADA, failed to request a reasonable accommodation for a known disability, and failed to show discriminatory termination under ADA or Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
Kulasa v. Wyndham Vacation Rentals North America, LLC
What Happened
A worker filed a lawsuit against Wyndham Vacation Rentals claiming the company discriminated against him, failed to accommodate a disability, and withheld wages. The employee argued he was treated unfairly because of his health condition.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled entirely in Wyndham's favor. The judge found that the worker did not prove he had a disability protected by law, did not formally request any workplace accommodations, and did not demonstrate that the company fired him because of discrimination.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that disability discrimination claims require solid evidence. Workers must clearly establish they have a recognized disability and typically need to request specific accommodations from their employer. Simply having a health condition isn't enough to win a discrimination case—you must show the employer knew about it and treated you unfairly because of it. Workers considering such claims should document their disability, make formal accommodation requests, and gather evidence linking any negative employment actions to their protected status.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in Kulasa from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.