Skip to main content

HARTZELL v. ADAPTABLE SYSTEMS CORP.

E.D. Pa.May 11, 2022No. 2:21-cv-01873
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: Employment
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

Claim Types

Wrongful TerminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, allowing defendant's motion for summary judgment to proceed. The case was dismissed in favor of the employer on FFCRA, FLSA, and FMLA claims.

What This Ruling Means

**Hartzell v. Adaptable Systems Corp. - Employment Discrimination Case** This case involved an employee named Hartzell who filed a discrimination lawsuit against Adaptable Systems Corp. The dispute appears to center on alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects workers from discrimination based on disabilities. However, the specific details of what type of discrimination occurred or the circumstances that led to the lawsuit are not available in the court records. Unfortunately, the court's final decision in this case has not been reported yet, as the case was filed relatively recently in May 2022. The outcome remains unknown, and no damages have been awarded at this time. **What This Means for Workers:** Even without knowing the final outcome, this case highlights the importance of understanding your rights under the ADA. If you have a disability, your employer must provide reasonable accommodations and cannot discriminate against you because of your condition. Workers who believe they've faced disability discrimination can file lawsuits to protect their rights. The ADA covers a wide range of conditions and protections, so it's worth knowing what safeguards exist in your workplace.

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

Similar Rulings

Con Ed v. NLRB
U.S. Supreme CourtDec 1938
Mixed Result
Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtFeb 1951
Remanded
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
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.