Skip to main content

Adams v. Cleveland Clinic Florida

S.D. Fla.January 31, 2022No. 9:20-cv-80247
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Florida

Related Laws

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and held defendant Cleveland Clinic Florida in civil contempt for repeatedly failing to comply with court-ordered disability training requirements.

What This Ruling Means

**Adams v. Cleveland Clinic Florida: Disability Discrimination Case** This case involves a worker who filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against Cleveland Clinic Florida under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The employee, Adams, claimed that the hospital violated federal disability laws in how they handled an employment matter related to their disability. The specific details of what happened - such as whether Adams was fired, denied accommodations, or faced other discriminatory treatment - are not available in the court records. **The Court's Decision** This case is still pending or no final court decision has been reached yet. The lawsuit was filed in January 2022, but the outcome remains unknown based on available court materials. **What This Means for Workers** Even though this case hasn't been resolved, it highlights important rights that all workers have under the ADA. Employees with disabilities can file federal lawsuits when they believe their employer has discriminated against them because of their disability. This includes situations where employers fail to provide reasonable accommodations, fire someone due to their disability, or treat disabled workers unfairly. The ADA protects workers at large employers like hospitals and medical facilities.

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

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
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
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
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.