§Why CasetextPricing

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.

REPLY BRIEF re Motion to Compel

23 Cited authorities

  1. Kolstad v. Am. Dental Assn

    527 U.S. 526 (1999)   Cited 1,463 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer may avoid punitive damages under § 1981a if it has made good-faith efforts to prevent discrimination in the workplace

  2. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett

    535 U.S. 391 (2002)   Cited 1,076 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "reasonable accommodation" in ADA means more than just effective accommodation

  3. Taylor v. Phoenixville School District

    184 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 1999)   Cited 1,201 times
    Holding thinking is a major life activity

  4. E.E.O.C. v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

    417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005)   Cited 505 times
    Holding district court erred in granting summary judgment to employer in finding plaintiff caused the breakdown in the interactive process

  5. Brady v. Wal-Mart

    531 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2008)   Cited 450 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding Rule 50(b) judgment contrary to jury verdict appropriate only "if there exists such a complete absence of evidence supporting the verdict that the jury's findings could only have been the result of sheer surmise and conjecture, or the evidence in favor of the movant is so overwhelming that reasonable and fair minded persons could not arrive at a verdict against it" (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted)

  6. Barnett v. U.S. Air

    228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 520 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer cannot prevail at the summary judgment stage if there is a genuine dispute as to whether the employer engaged in good faith in the interactive process"

  7. Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools

    100 F.3d 1281 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 394 times
    Holding that plaintiff with a history of paranoid schizophrenia and bipolar disorder was disabled under the ADA

  8. Deane v. Pocono Medical Center

    142 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 1998)   Cited 370 times
    Holding that call from employer's human resources representative “terminating Deane because of her ‘handicap' is uncontroverted direct evidence that Deane suffered an adverse employment action because of her employer's perception of her disability”

  9. Hohider v. United Parcel

    574 F.3d 169 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 249 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "an employer's '100% healed' policy, even if deemed per se discriminatory, cannot give rise to a finding of liability and relief under the ADA without the statutorily required inquiry into whether those affected by the policy are disabled and able to perform the essential functions of the jobs they seek or desire with or without reasonable accommodation"

  10. Chisolm v. McManimon

    275 F.3d 315 (3d Cir. 2001)   Cited 252 times
    Holding that a reasonable trier of fact could infer that a deaf inmate whose primary form of communication was American Sign Language required an assistant trained in American Sign Language at critical points

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 95,908 times   660 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Section 12112 - Discrimination

    42 U.S.C. § 12112   Cited 13,592 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination

  13. Section 12102 - Definition of disability

    42 U.S.C. § 12102   Cited 10,840 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing ADA claim where plaintiff is "regarded as" disabled

  14. Section 705 - Definitions

    29 U.S.C. § 705   Cited 1,071 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of disability set forth in § 12102

  15. Section 1630.2 - Definitions

    29 C.F.R. § 1630.2   Cited 8,354 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"

  16. Section 60-741.21 - Prohibitions

    41 C.F.R. § 60-741.21   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) The term discrimination includes, but is not limited to, the acts described in this section and § 60-741.23. (1)Disparate treatment. It is unlawful for the contractor to deny an employment opportunity or benefit or otherwise to discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability. (2)Limiting, segregating and classifying. Unless otherwise permitted by this part, it is unlawful for the contractor to limit, segregate, or classify a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely

  17. Section 60-741.45 - Utilization goals

    41 C.F.R. § 60-741.45   6 Legal Analyses

    The utilization goal is not a rigid and inflexible quota which must be met, nor is it to be considered either a ceiling or a floor for the employment of particular groups. Quotas are expressly forbidden. (a)Goal. OFCCP has established a utilization goal of 7 percent for employment of qualified individuals with disabilities for each job group in the contractor's workforce, or for the contractor's entire workforce as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section. (b)Purpose. The purpose of the utilization

  18. Section 60-741.44 - Required contents of affirmative action programs

    41 C.F.R. § 60-741.44   17 Legal Analyses

    Acceptable affirmative action programs shall contain, but not necessarily be limited to the following elements: (a)Policy statement. The contractor shall include an equal opportunity policy statement in its affirmative action program, and shall post the policy statement on company bulletin boards. The contractor must ensure that applicants and employees with disabilities are provided the notice in a form that is accessible and understandable to the individual with a disability (e.g., providing Braille