Skip to main content

Jordan v. Union Township Board of Trustees

S.D. OhioOctober 29, 2019No. 1:18-cv-00053
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

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

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to AccommodateDiscrimination

Outcome

The federal court granted in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment by staying the case pursuant to Younger abstention, finding that abstention was appropriate due to the pending parallel state court action.

What This Ruling Means

**Jordan v. Union Township Board of Trustees: Workplace Accommodation Case** This case involved a dispute between an employee named Jordan and Union Township Board of Trustees over civil rights violations and the employer's failure to provide workplace accommodations. While the specific details of what accommodation Jordan requested aren't provided, the case centered on whether the township properly handled an employee's needs under civil rights laws. Unfortunately, the court's final decision in this case is not available in the provided information, so we cannot report on how the judge ruled or what remedies may have been ordered. **What This Means for Workers:** This case highlights an important workplace right that many employees may not fully understand. Employers are legally required to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities or certain other protected characteristics. These accommodations might include schedule changes, equipment modifications, or other workplace adjustments that allow employees to perform their jobs effectively. If you believe your employer has failed to accommodate your needs or violated your civil rights, you have the right to file a complaint. Workers should document their accommodation requests and their employer's responses, as this information becomes crucial if legal action becomes necessary.

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.