Skip to main content
Claim Type

Disability Discrimination Cases

129 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1996–2026)

129
Total Rulings
11%
Plaintiff Win Rate

13 of 115 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.

$1,214,465
Avg Damages Awarded (7 prevailing cases)
S.D.N.Y.
Top Court

About Disability Discrimination Claims

Disability discrimination claims involve adverse employment actions based on an employee's physical or mental disability. The ADA and state disability laws prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals and require reasonable accommodations. These cases examine whether the employee can perform essential job functions with or without accommodation.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
55 (43%)
Dismissed
30 (23%)
Mixed Result
17 (13%)
Plaintiff Win
13 (10%)
Settlement
9 (7%)
Remanded
5 (4%)

Related Laws

Top Employers in Disability Discrimination Cases

Employers most frequently appearing in disability discrimination rulings.

Court Rulings (129)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Autozone, Inc.
7th CircuitFeb 15, 2013
Plaintiff Win$415,000 awarded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
7th CircuitNov 20, 2012Wisconsin
Defendant Win
James
W.D. Ky.Aug 4, 2011Kentucky
Defendant Win
Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
9th CircuitApr 26, 2011
Defendant Win
Celeste
2nd CircuitApr 21, 2010
Mixed Result
VandenBroek v. PSEG Power Ct LLC
2nd CircuitDec 11, 2009Connecticut
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Agro Distribution, LLC
5th CircuitJan 15, 2009Mississippi
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School
E.D. Mich.Oct 23, 2008Michigan
Defendant Win
Canfield
INNDNov 7, 2007Indiana
Defendant Win
Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100 v. New York City Transit Authority
2nd CircuitOct 16, 2007
Dismissed
McGee
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 2, 2007
Plaintiff Win$1,207,000 awarded
EEOC v. Schneider Nat'l Inc
7th CircuitMar 21, 2007
Defendant Win
Bowling
N.C. Ct. App.Oct 17, 2006

1. Appeal and Error — appealability — interlocutory order — substantial right Although plaintiff's appeal from the trial court's order dismissing his claim under the North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act is an appeal from an interlocutory order Page 816 based on the fact that two…

Defendant Win
Bowers
Ohio Ct. App.Jul 13, 2006
Defendant Win
Vickery
N.D. Ala.Dec 12, 2005Alabama
Defendant Win
Thomas v. Fmc Corporation Retirement Plan For Hourly Employees
8th CircuitJul 1, 2003
Plaintiff Win
Steven E. Crown v. Union Pacific RR
8th CircuitAug 15, 2002
Defendant Win
Thorner-Green
E.D.N.Y.Jun 19, 2002New York
Defendant Win
Green
9th CircuitFeb 20, 2002
Defendant Win
EEOC v. Waffle House
4th CircuitJan 31, 2002
Mixed Result
Johnson v. Union Pacific Railroad
8th CircuitAug 2, 2001
Defendant Win
Davies
E.D. Pa.Jan 8, 2001Pennsylvania
Mixed Result
Wayne Hein v. All America Plywood Company, Incorporated Kurt Adam Ludwinski, Jointly and Severally
6th CircuitNov 14, 2000Michigan
Defendant Win
Casey A. Kennedy v. Superior Printing Company Local 419m Graphic Communications International Union
6th CircuitJun 15, 2000
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Waffle House, Incorporated
4th CircuitOct 6, 1999
Mixed Result
Sampson
N.D. Ga.Jul 13, 1998Georgia
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prevo's Family Market, Inc.
6th CircuitApr 23, 1998
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad
D. IdahoJan 23, 1998Idaho
Plaintiff Win
Kriskovic
E.D. Wis.Dec 17, 1996Wisconsin
Defendant Win

Showing 101–129 of 129 rulings · Page 3 of 3

Think you may have a disability discrimination claim?

Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.

Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The classification of claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.