Skip to main content

Yan Luis v. Marriott International, Inc.

S.D.N.Y.May 31, 2022No. 1:22-cv-02713
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
consent decree

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The parties reached a settlement in principle and the case was dismissed without costs and without prejudice, allowing for restoration if the settlement cannot be memorialized in writing by July 1, 2022.

What This Ruling Means

**Hotel Worker Sues Marriott Over Disability Discrimination** Yan Luis, a worker at Marriott International, filed a lawsuit against the hotel company claiming disability discrimination. Luis alleged that Marriott violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by treating him unfairly because of his disability. The case was filed in federal court in New York in May 2022. The specific details of what happened to Luis and the final court decision are not available in the court records provided. The case involved claims that Marriott failed to follow federal laws that protect workers with disabilities from discrimination in the workplace. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights important protections that exist for employees with disabilities. Under the ADA, employers cannot discriminate against workers because of their disabilities and must provide reasonable accommodations when needed. Workers who believe they've faced disability discrimination have the right to file complaints with government agencies or pursue lawsuits in federal court. Even though the outcome of this specific case isn't known, it demonstrates that employees can challenge large employers when they believe their disability rights have been violated.

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

Similar Rulings

Stotesbery
D. Minn.Oct 2024
Remanded
Reina Isabel Barahona v. Marriott International, Inc.
C.D. Cal.Feb 2022
Remanded
Ramirez
S.D.N.Y.Sep 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

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.