Skip to main content

DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

D. Or.July 15, 2021No. 3:21-cv-00205
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
445 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Employment
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss
State
Oregon

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim under the ADA as time-barred, finding that the statute of limitations was not tolled by plaintiff's participation in a prior class action that did not assert the same claim.

What This Ruling Means

**DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company: Discrimination Case** This case involved a dispute between an employee named DeFries and Union Pacific Railroad Company. DeFries claimed the railroad company discriminated against him, including discrimination based on his disability. These are serious allegations that suggest the company may have treated DeFries unfairly because of a medical condition or disability he had. Unfortunately, the court documents available don't provide enough information to determine how the court ruled in this case or what the final outcome was. The case was filed in 2021, but the specific details of the court's decision are not included in the available records. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the outcome, this case highlights important workplace rights. Workers with disabilities are protected by federal law from discrimination at work. If you believe you've been treated unfairly because of a disability, you have the right to file a complaint. Railroad workers, like those at Union Pacific, have the same anti-discrimination protections as other employees. If you face similar issues, consider documenting incidents and consulting with an employment attorney or filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

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

Similar Rulings

Huntsman
N.D. Cal.Dec 2025
Defendant Win
Vasquez
5th CircuitOct 2025
Defendant Win
Cromeens
D. Neb.Sep 2025
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

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.