Skip to main content

Cox v. University of Dayton

S.D. OhioNovember 5, 2019No. 3:17-cv-00395
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
Ohio

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to AccommodateDiscrimination

Outcome

Court overruled defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute, sustained motion to continue trial, and ordered plaintiff to respond to motion for summary judgment within 30 days; failure to respond may result in judgment for defendant.

What This Ruling Means

**Cox v. University of Dayton: Disability Discrimination Case** This case involved a disability discrimination dispute between an employee named Cox and the University of Dayton. Cox filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming the university discriminated against them because of a disability. The ADA is a federal civil rights law that protects people with disabilities from discrimination in employment and other areas. Unfortunately, the specific details about what happened to Cox and how the court ultimately ruled are not available from the court records provided. The case was filed in 2019 in an Ohio federal court, but the final outcome and any damages awarded remain unclear. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the specific outcome, this case highlights an important protection for workers with disabilities. The ADA gives employees the right to file lawsuits when they believe their employer has discriminated against them because of a disability. Workers have legal options if they face discrimination, harassment, or if their employer fails to provide reasonable accommodations for their disability. If you believe you've experienced disability discrimination at work, you may have legal rights worth exploring with an employment attorney.

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

Similar Rulings

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
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded

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.