Skip to main content

Kanu v. City Of Cincinnati

S.D. OhioOctober 29, 2019No. 1:19-cv-00156
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Kohn's claims against the State Bar of California, holding that the State Bar is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and cannot be sued for monetary damages in federal court.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved a worker named Kohn who sued the State Bar of California for disability discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations under federal law. Kohn was seeking monetary damages for these alleged violations. The court dismissed Kohn's lawsuit entirely. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the State Bar of California cannot be sued for money damages in federal court because it operates as an "arm of the state" and has what's called sovereign immunity. This legal protection shields state government entities from certain types of lawsuits in federal court, even when workers claim discrimination or accommodation failures. This ruling matters for workers because it shows the limitations they may face when trying to sue certain state-connected employers for disability discrimination. While workers still have rights under disability laws, they may need to pursue claims through state courts or seek non-monetary remedies when dealing with state agencies or organizations that function as part of state government. Workers should understand that not all employers can be sued the same way in federal court, and some government-related employers have special legal protections that can make it harder to recover monetary damages for discrimination.

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

Similar Rulings

Eastman
N.D. Cal.May 2021
Dismissed
Miller v. Aetna Life Insurance Company
S.D. OhioMay 2020
Defendant 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
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.