3,564 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1894–2026)
Failure to accommodate claims arise when an employer does not provide reasonable accommodations for an employee with a disability or sincerely held religious belief. Under the ADA and Title VII, employers must engage in an interactive process to identify effective accommodations unless doing so would cause undue hardship. Common accommodations include modified schedules, assistive technology, and workplace modifications.
Employers most frequently appearing in failure to accommodate rulings.
This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which certified a question to the Supreme Court in accordance with Article I, Rule 6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The certified question reads as follows: "Does Section 28-5-7(6) of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-1 et seq. ('FEPA'), provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer and, if so, under what circumstances?" The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that G.L. 1956 § 28-5-7(6) does not provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer. The Court remanded the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island for further proceedings.
This case came before the Supreme Court pursuant to an order of the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, which certified a question to the Supreme Court in accordance with Article I, Rule 6(a) of the Supreme Court Rules of Appellate Procedure. The certified question reads as follows: "Does Section 28-5-7(6) of the Rhode Island Fair Employment Practices Act, R.I. Gen. Laws § 28-5-1 et seq. ('FEPA'), provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer and, if so, under what circumstances?" The Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative, holding that G.L. 1956 § 28-5-7(6) does not provide for the individual liability of an employee of a defendant employer. The Court remanded the case to the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island for further proceedings.
State employee with work-related driving privileges did not have his ability to perform his job impaired, especially when his job entailed minimal driving. Further, employee's application for FMLA leave for three months should have been granted. Summary judgment for the Ohio Department of Transportation in ensuing lawsuit was not appropriate.
Explore rulings by type of employment law 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.