Skip to main content

Reams v. Local 18, International Union of Operating Engineers

N.D. OhioNovember 5, 2021No. 3:21-cv-00878
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil Rights: Jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court denied the defendant union's motion to dismiss, allowing the plaintiff's disability discrimination claim to proceed. However, this is a procedural ruling on a motion to dismiss, not a final judgment on the merits.

What This Ruling Means

**Reams v. Local 18, International Union of Operating Engineers** **What Happened:** A worker named Reams filed a discrimination lawsuit against Local 18, International Union of Operating Engineers, which represents heavy equipment operators and other construction workers. The case involved claims that the union discriminated against Reams, though the specific details about the type of discrimination or circumstances are not available in the court records. **What the Court Decided:** The outcome of this case is not specified in the available court documents. The case was filed in federal court in Ohio in November 2021, but the final resolution, whether through settlement, dismissal, or trial verdict, is not reported. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case highlights an important point for union members: workers can file discrimination claims not just against their employers, but also against their own unions. Labor unions have legal obligations to treat all members fairly and cannot discriminate based on protected characteristics like race, gender, age, or disability. Union members who believe they've faced discrimination from their union leadership or in union activities have legal recourse through federal court, just as they would against an employer.

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

Similar Rulings

Midkiff
E.D. Va.Apr 2025
Defendant Win
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

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.