Andrew T. Harrison, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Drug Enforcement Agency), Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
527 U.S. 471 (1999) Cited 2,914 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that " person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently 'substantially limits' a major life activity."
Bragdon v. Abbott
524 U.S. 624 (1998) Cited 1,679 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that DOJ's administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg
527 U.S. 555 (1999) Cited 695 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that although vision-impaired individuals may not have "an onerous burden" in demonstrating disability and "ordinarily will meet the [ADA]'s definition of disability," they must still offer evidence of "limitation in terms of their own experience"
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
527 U.S. 516 (1999) Cited 505 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "determination of [a person's] disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs."
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.
424 U.S. 747 (1976) Cited 1,102 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement
Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 217 times
Holding that the plaintiff's diabetes and related medical conditions, which affected “many of the organ systems in his body,” were physical impairments under the ADA
Mantolete v. Bolger
767 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985) Cited 286 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in assessing elevated risk to an employee under the Rehabilitation Act, the employer must "gather [and assess] all relevant information regarding the applicant's work history and medical history"
Day v. Mathews
530 F.2d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1976) Cited 101 times
In Day v. Mathews, 530 F.2d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1976), there was conceded proof that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare had treated Mr. Day's applications for promotion in discriminatory fashion.
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,070 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"
Appendix to Part 1630 - Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act
29 C.F.R. § 1630, app to Part 1630 Cited 878 times 8 Legal Analyses
Determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity entails the nature and severity of the impairment; the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and the permanent or long term impact

Andrew T. Harrison, Complainant, v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Drug Enforcement Agency), Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Holding that " person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently 'substantially limits' a major life activity."

Holding that DOJ's administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference

Holding that although vision-impaired individuals may not have "an onerous burden" in demonstrating disability and "ordinarily will meet the [ADA]'s definition of disability," they must still offer evidence of "limitation in terms of their own experience"

Holding that the "determination of [a person's] disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs."

Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

Holding that the plaintiff's diabetes and related medical conditions, which affected “many of the organ systems in his body,” were physical impairments under the ADA

Holding that, in assessing elevated risk to an employee under the Rehabilitation Act, the employer must "gather [and assess] all relevant information regarding the applicant's work history and medical history"

In Day v. Mathews, 530 F.2d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1976), there was conceded proof that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare had treated Mr. Day's applications for promotion in discriminatory fashion.

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity entails the nature and severity of the impairment; the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and the permanent or long term impact