Skip to main content

Laurie Stakelum v. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi

MISSCTAPPNovember 12, 2019No. NO. 2018-SA-01207-COA
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Barnes, Carlton, Wilson, Greenlee, Westbrooks, Tindell, McDonald, Lawrence, Wilson
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision upholding PERS's denial of disability retirement benefits to Stakelum, finding the agency's decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Laurie Stakelum had a workplace dispute with her employer, the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi. The case involved employment law issues, though the specific details of what went wrong between Stakelum and her employer are not clear from the available information. The case reached the Mississippi Court of Appeals in November 2019. **What the Court Decided:** The court's final decision is not available from the provided information. Since this was an appeal case, it means either Stakelum or her employer disagreed with a lower court's ruling and asked a higher court to review the decision. **Why This Matters for Workers:** While the specific outcome isn't known, this case demonstrates that public employees have the right to challenge their employers in court when workplace disputes arise. Public sector workers, including those at state retirement systems, are protected by employment laws and can pursue legal action when they believe those rights have been violated. The fact that the case reached the appeals level shows that employment disputes can involve complex legal issues that may require multiple court reviews to resolve properly.

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

Similar Rulings

Bobbie Thomas v. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
MISSCTAPPSep 2022
Defendant Win
Linda K. Newton v. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
MISSCTAPPJul 2020
Plaintiff Win
Amy Sherman-Oliver v. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi;
MISSCTAPPFeb 2020
Plaintiff 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.