Wendell E. Mardis, Sr. Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

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

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,569 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 "
  2. 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"
  3. Mantolete v. Bolger

    767 F.2d 1416 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 280 times   1 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"
  4. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 51,616 times   129 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
  5. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,365 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims
  6. Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities

    29 U.S.C. § 791   Cited 2,274 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
  7. Section 1630.2 - Definitions

    29 C.F.R. § 1630.2   Cited 8,348 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding that major life activity is substantially limited if plaintiff is "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities"