§

Madelaine G. v. Dep't of State

EEOC Appeal No. 0120141877 (E.E.O.C. Oct. 25, 2016)
Madelaine G. v. Dep't of State

5 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. Branham v. Snow

    392 F.3d 896 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 166 times
    Holding that a reasonable juror could find the plaintiff substantially limited in the activity of eating based on his diabetes, his limitations after receiving treatment, and the side effects of that treatment

  3. Hutton v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc.

    273 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 157 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a direct threat can exist where the nature and severity of the potential harm is catastrophic, though the likelihood that it will occur is small

  4. 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"

  5. 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