CompFox AI Summary
The plaintiff, Richard A. Thompson, sued UGL Unicco Service Company for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and state law claims of retaliatory discharge and violations of the Tennessee Disability Act (TDA) and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the FMLA claim because UGL Unicco did not meet the statutory definition of an 'employer'. The THRA disability discrimination claim was also dismissed as it is typically brought under the TDA, guided by ADA law. For the ADA and TDA claims, the court found Thompson failed to demonstrate a substantial limitation in major life activities due to his diabetes, thus not establishing a 'disability'. Finally, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law retaliatory discharge claim, finding no exercise of a statutory right related to the adverse action.
Thompson v. UGL UNICCO SERVICE CO. is a workers' compensation case decided in District Court, W.D. Tennessee. This case addresses legal issues related to compensation claims, benefits, and court rulings.
It is commonly referenced in legal research involving workers' compensation laws in District Court, W.D. Tennessee.
Full Decision Text1 Pages
The plaintiff, Richard A. Thompson, sued UGL Unicco Service Company for alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and state law claims of retaliatory discharge and violations of the Tennessee Disability Act (TDA) and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the FMLA claim because UGL Unicco did not meet the statutory definition of an 'employer'. The THRA disability discrimination claim was also dismissed as it is typically brought under the TDA, guided by ADA law. For the ADA and TDA claims, the court found Thompson failed to demonstrate a substantial limitation in major life activities due to his diabetes, thus not establishing a 'disability'. Finally, the court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law retaliatory discharge claim, finding no exercise of a statutory right related to the adverse action.
Read the full decision
Join + legal professionals. Create a free account to access the complete text of this decision and search our entire database.