Lizandro Mateo-Ortiz, Complainant, William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency,

7 Cited authorities

  1. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

    527 U.S. 471 (1999)   Cited 2,897 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."
  2. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,575 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 "
  3. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,614 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"
  4. Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg

    527 U.S. 555 (1999)   Cited 680 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"
  5. Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

    527 U.S. 516 (1999)   Cited 502 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "determination of [a person's] disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs."
  6. Prewitt v. United States Postal Service

    662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 292 times
    Concluding in a Rehabilitation Act case involving employment discrimination that the employer has the burden of persuasion on the issue of reasonable accommodation
  7. Bentivegna v. United States Dept. of Labor

    694 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1982)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that a job qualification can exclude handicapped individuals if the qualification substantially promotes safe performance