Kathleen P. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

10 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,440 times 95 Legal Analyses
Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,577 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,615 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal
536 U.S. 73 (2002) Cited 329 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the ADA's direct-threat defense may apply not only to “other individuals in the workplace,” as the statute states, but to the disabled individual himself
Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Hlth
198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 277 times
Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease
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
Cook v. Rhode Island, Department of Mental Health, Retardation, & Hospitals
10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993) Cited 145 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer regarded plaintiff as disabled where employer believed that plaintiff's impairment foreclosed broad range of employment options in relevant industry
Swanks v. Washington Met. Area Transit
179 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 50 times
Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,956 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 860 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

Kathleen P. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

10 Cited authorities

Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"

Holding that the ADA's direct-threat defense may apply not only to “other individuals in the workplace,” as the statute states, but to the disabled individual himself

Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease

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 employer regarded plaintiff as disabled where employer believed that plaintiff's impairment foreclosed broad range of employment options in relevant industry

Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))

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