33 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,210 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,088 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.
523 U.S. 75 (1998) Cited 5,151 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
United States v. Diebold, Inc.
369 U.S. 654 (1962) Cited 11,295 times
Holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised
US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett
535 U.S. 391 (2002) Cited 1,072 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that "reasonable accommodation" in ADA means more than just effective accommodation
Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.
302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 2,158 times
Holding that pro se plaintiff's good faith mistake of law amounted to mere inadvertence, and did not warrant relief from an untimely jury demand
McGinest v. GTE Serv. Corp.
360 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 956 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff "may proceed by using the McDonnell Douglas framework, or alternatively, may simply produce direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated" the employer
Bates v. U. P. S
511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 738 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding where claim involved facially discriminatory qualification standard, the Teamsters burden-shifting protocol is inapplicable
Snead v. Metropolitan Property Cas. Ins. Co.
237 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 612 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding Title VII analysis applies in ADA case
Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals Ass'n
239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 562 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer had a duty to accommodate employee with obsessive compulsive disorder, which interfered with her ability to get to work on time, or at all, but did not affect her ability to function effectively as a medical transcriptionist
Section 12112 - Discrimination
42 U.S.C. § 12112 Cited 13,513 times 159 Legal Analyses
Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination
Section 1630.2 - Definitions
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 Cited 8,335 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"

Burks v. Crown Beverage Packaging LLC

33 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

Holding that a court must construe all inferences and ambiguities against the movant and in favor of the non-moving party in determining whether a genuine issue of material act has been raised

Holding that "reasonable accommodation" in ADA means more than just effective accommodation

Holding that pro se plaintiff's good faith mistake of law amounted to mere inadvertence, and did not warrant relief from an untimely jury demand

Holding that a plaintiff "may proceed by using the McDonnell Douglas framework, or alternatively, may simply produce direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating that a discriminatory reason more likely than not motivated" the employer

Holding where claim involved facially discriminatory qualification standard, the Teamsters burden-shifting protocol is inapplicable

Holding Title VII analysis applies in ADA case

Holding that employer had a duty to accommodate employee with obsessive compulsive disorder, which interfered with her ability to get to work on time, or at all, but did not affect her ability to function effectively as a medical transcriptionist

Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination

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"