Skip to main content

Jaquez v. Brilliant Home Technology, Inc.

S.D.N.Y.March 30, 2022No. 1:20-cv-09855
Plaintiff WinBrilliant Home Technology, Inc.$9,799 awarded
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
default judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to AccommodateHostile Work Environment

Outcome

Plaintiff, a blind and visually-impaired person, obtained a default judgment against Brilliant Home Technology, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law based on the defendant's inaccessible website. The court awarded compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and a permanent injunction requiring the defendant to bring the website into full ADA compliance.

What This Ruling Means

**Jaquez v. Brilliant Home Technology: Disability Discrimination Case** **What Happened:** An employee named Jaquez filed a lawsuit against Brilliant Home Technology, Inc., claiming the company discriminated against them because of a disability. The case was brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects workers with disabilities from unfair treatment in the workplace. **What the Court Decided:** The court records show this case was filed in March 2022, but the specific outcome and details of the court's decision are not available in the public information. No damages amounts have been reported, and the final resolution remains unclear from the available documents. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights workers' rights under the ADA to file discrimination claims when they believe their employer has treated them unfairly due to a disability. Even when specific outcomes aren't known, these cases serve as important reminders that employees have legal protections and can seek justice through the courts. Workers who experience disability discrimination should know they have options to challenge unfair treatment, whether that involves requesting reasonable accommodations, fighting wrongful termination, or addressing other forms of workplace discrimination based on their disability status.

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

Similar Rulings

Jaquez
S.D.N.Y.Dec 2021
Plaintiff Win
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
Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC
2nd CircuitDec 2013
Mixed Result
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff 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.