Mary Kauppila, Complainant, v. Mike Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
527 U.S. 471 (1999) Cited 2,911 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."
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,707 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 1,630 times 5 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"
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg
527 U.S. 555 (1999) Cited 694 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."
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,062 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"

Mary Kauppila, Complainant, v. Mike Leavitt, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

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."

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

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

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"

Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg

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.

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

Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

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