Skip to main content

Harmon v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

E.D. Tenn.June 23, 2023No. 1:20-cv-00318
Defendant WinThe Florida Bar
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Cichowskis' civil rights action, holding that Judge Totten was entitled to absolute judicial immunity and the Florida Bar was protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The Cichowski family filed a civil rights lawsuit against Judge Totten and The Florida Bar, claiming discrimination and failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The specific details of their workplace discrimination claims aren't provided in the excerpt, but they sought legal action for alleged violations of their civil rights. **What the Court Decided** The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the defendants and dismissed the case entirely. The court ruled that Judge Totten could not be sued because judges have "absolute judicial immunity" - meaning they're protected from lawsuits for their official duties. The court also found that The Florida Bar couldn't be sued because it has "Eleventh Amendment immunity" as a state entity. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling highlights important limitations workers face when trying to sue certain defendants for discrimination. Workers should understand that judges generally cannot be sued personally for their official actions, even if those actions seem unfair. Additionally, some state organizations may have special legal protections that make them difficult to sue. When facing workplace discrimination, workers should consult with employment attorneys to identify the right defendants and understand which legal protections might apply.

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.