University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name FENNELL v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and ARAMARK COMPANY INC EE-DC-0001
Docket / Court 1:97-cv-00716-RMU ( D.D.C. )
State/Territory District of Columbia
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Case Summary
This suit was brought in April 1997 against Aramark Company Inc and Aetna Life Insurance Company in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because benefits given to mentally disabled employees were not ... read more >
This suit was brought in April 1997 against Aramark Company Inc and Aetna Life Insurance Company in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiff alleged a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because benefits given to mentally disabled employees were not as generous as those given to physically disabled employees. The case was consolidated almost immediately with a suit brought against the defendants by the EEOC. The defendants moved for summary judgment, and in February 1999 the motion was granted. 37 F.Supp.2d 40 (D.D.C. 1999). The plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed. 208 F.3d 266 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

Jason Chester - 08/13/2008


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Discrimination-area
Pay / Benefits
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
EEOC-centric
Private Suit Related / Consolidated with EEOC Suit
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ยงยง 12111 et seq.
Defendant(s) Aetna Life Insurance Company
Aramark Company Inc
Plaintiff Description A former employee of Aramark Company, Inc., who developed a mental disability that prevented her from working
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Defendant
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None
Source of Relief None
Case Closing Year 1999
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing EE-DC-0056 : EEOC v. ARAMARK COMPANY INC, et al (D.D.C.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Microsoft Gender Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit
Date: Oct. 14, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Age Discrimination Class Action seeks Fair Employment for Older PwC Applicants
http://www.pwcagecase.com/
Date: Apr. 27, 2016
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Smith Barney Gender Discrimination
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/employment/smith-barney/
Date: August 2008
By: Outten & Golden
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Date: Mar. 1, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:97-cv-00716-RMU (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0001-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/06/2000
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Memorandum Opinion (37 F.Supp.2d 40) (D.D.C.)
EE-DC-0001-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 02/26/1999
Source: Google Scholar

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -