Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Kimberly S. Carder v. Metso USA, Inc.

Date: 06-24-2025

Case Number: 24-cv-07273

Judge: Joseph F Anderson, Jr.

Court: United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Richland County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: Ben Dunn

Defendant's Attorney: Doris Abercrombie

Description:
Columbia, South Carolina civil rights lawyer represented the Plaintiff on an Americans with Disabilities Act theory.



* * *



The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a landmark civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in various areas of public life. It ensures equal opportunities for people with disabilities in employment, public services, public accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications. The ADA aims to remove barriers and promote inclusion for people with disabilities in all aspects of society.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

Key Provisions:



Employment (Title I):



Employers with 15 or more employees are prohibited from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in hiring, promotion, and other employment practices. They must also provide reasonable accommodations to enable employees with disabilities to perform essential job functions.



Public Services (Title II):



State and local governments are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities in their programs, services, and activities. This includes public transportation, education, and other government services.



Public Accommodations (Title III):



Private businesses that are open to the public, such as restaurants, stores, and hotels, are prohibited from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. They must make their services accessible and provide reasonable modifications to ensure equal access.



Telecommunications (Title IV):



Requires telephone and internet companies to provide telecommunications relay services, enabling individuals with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate over the phone.



Reasonable Accommodations:



A key aspect of the ADA is the requirement for reasonable accommodations. This means making adjustments to the workplace, public accommodations, or other settings to allow individuals with disabilities to participate fully.

Who is Protected:



The ADA protects individuals with disabilities, those with a record of a disability, and those who are regarded as having a disability, even if they don't actually have one.



Important Considerations:



Definition of Disability:



The ADA broadly defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.



Undue Hardship:

Employers are not required to provide accommodations that would cause undue hardship, meaning excessive difficulty or expense.



Enforcement:



The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Title I (employment) of the ADA. Other agencies, like the Department of Justice (DOJ), handle other titles.



Amendments:



The ADA was amended in 2008 by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which broadened the definition of disability.



In essence, the ADA aims to create a society where individuals with disabilities have the same opportunities and rights as everyone else.

Outcome:
Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:

About This Case

What was the outcome of Kimberly S. Carder v. Metso USA, Inc.?

The outcome was: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Which court heard Kimberly S. Carder v. Metso USA, Inc.?

This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of South Carolina (Richland County), SC. The presiding judge was Joseph F Anderson, Jr..

Who were the attorneys in Kimberly S. Carder v. Metso USA, Inc.?

Plaintiff's attorney: Ben Dunn. Defendant's attorney: Doris Abercrombie.

When was Kimberly S. Carder v. Metso USA, Inc. decided?

This case was decided on June 24, 2025.