87 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,147 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"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,521 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,186 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"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,401 times 95 Legal Analyses
Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 19,994 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
Adickes v. Kress Co.
398 U.S. 144 (1970) Cited 25,111 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a private person who conspires with government actors to deprive a plaintiff of her constitutional rights acts "under color of law" for purposes of § 1983
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."
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams
534 U.S. 184 (2002) Cited 2,461 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding "substantially" and "major" "need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled," and therefore, to be disabled "an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives"
United States v. Diebold, Inc.
369 U.S. 654 (1962) Cited 11,312 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
Olmstead v. L. C
527 U.S. 581 (1999) Cited 910 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state engages in disability discrimination if it institutionalizes individuals with disabilities when community-based placement could be reasonably accommodated, accounting for the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities.
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 330,074 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 12112 - Discrimination
42 U.S.C. § 12112 Cited 13,599 times 159 Legal Analyses
Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination
Section 12102 - Definition of disability
42 U.S.C. § 12102 Cited 10,848 times 40 Legal Analyses
Recognizing ADA claim where plaintiff is "regarded as" disabled
Section 2615 - Prohibited acts
29 U.S.C. § 2615 Cited 5,112 times 23 Legal Analyses
Granting prescriptive rights
Section 12203 - Prohibition against retaliation and coercion
42 U.S.C. § 12203 Cited 3,398 times 12 Legal Analyses
Providing that "No person shall discriminate against any individual because . . . such individual made a charge . . . under [the ADA]" and making it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee requested an accommodation
Section 1630.2 - Definitions
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 Cited 8,358 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"
Section 825.104 - Covered employer
29 C.F.R. § 825.104 Cited 293 times 20 Legal Analyses
Defining “Covered employer”

Colonna v. Upmc Hamot et al

87 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, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

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 in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

Holding that a private person who conspires with government actors to deprive a plaintiff of her constitutional rights acts "under color of law" for purposes of § 1983

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."

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 a state engages in disability discrimination if it institutionalizes individuals with disabilities when community-based placement could be reasonably accommodated, accounting for the resources available to the state and the needs of others with disabilities.

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination

Recognizing ADA claim where plaintiff is "regarded as" disabled

Granting prescriptive rights

Providing that "No person shall discriminate against any individual because . . . such individual made a charge . . . under [the ADA]" and making it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee because the employee requested an accommodation

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"

Defining “Covered employer”