No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on ADA, FMLA, and TDA claims, but the opinion indicates the court found defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the FMLA interference and retaliation claims, and likely on the ADA and TDA claims as well based on the legal analysis presented.
Wanner v. Under Armour, Inc. — Court Summary
What Happened
A worker sued Under Armour, claiming the company discriminated against them based on a disability, failed to provide necessary workplace accommodations, and punished them for taking protected medical leave or reporting problems.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled in Under Armour's favor. The judge determined that the company did not violate federal laws protecting workers with disabilities (the ADA), family and medical leave rights (FMLA), or a related state law (TDA). The court found the company entitled to win on the FMLA claims and likely on the disability discrimination claims as well, based on the legal reasoning presented.
Why This Matters for Workers
This case shows that courts carefully examine whether an employer actually broke these workplace protection laws. Simply filing a complaint isn't enough—workers need strong evidence that the employer's actions directly caused harm. If you believe your employer has discriminated against you or failed to accommodate a disability, gathering clear documentation of the company's decisions and how they affected you is crucial.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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.