31 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 240,017 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"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 219,584 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
  3. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams

    534 U.S. 184 (2002)   Cited 2,471 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"
  4. Bragdon v. Abbott

    524 U.S. 624 (1998)   Cited 1,658 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that DOJ's administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference
  5. School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline

    480 U.S. 273 (1987)   Cited 1,032 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that teacher with long dormant disease of tuberculosis that had recently reoccurred was "handicapped" within meaning of Rehabilitation Act
  6. Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison Co.

    302 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2002)   Cited 2,202 times
    Holding that "[a]n employee is not required to use any particular language when requesting an accommodation but need only inform the employer of the need for an adjustment due to a medical condition." (cleaned up)
  7. Fraser v. Goodale

    342 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 1,435 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's diary could be considered on summary judgment because she could testify consistent with its contents at trial
  8. Bates v. U. P. S

    511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 757 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding where claim involved facially discriminatory qualification standard, the Teamsters burden-shifting protocol is inapplicable
  9. Bay v. Cassens Transport Company

    212 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 567 times
    Holding that, absent evidence of bad faith or pretext, an employer is generally entitled to rely on medical determinations of an employee's abilities
  10. Sanders v. Arneson Products, Inc.

    91 F.3d 1351 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 247 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that temporary injuries with minimal lasting effects are not generally disabilities actionable under the ADA
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 334,280 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Section 12112 - Discrimination

    42 U.S.C. § 12112   Cited 13,815 times   159 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination
  13. Section 12111 - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 12111   Cited 8,176 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition of "person" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e for purposes of Title I of the ADA
  14. Section 12113 - Defenses

    42 U.S.C. § 12113   Cited 406 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Providing an employer may have "a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace"
  15. Section 1630.2 - Definitions

    29 C.F.R. § 1630.2   Cited 8,473 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 350.105 - What definitions are used in this part?

    49 C.F.R. § 350.105   Cited 11 times

    Unless specifically defined in this section, terms used in this part are subject to the definitions in 49 CFR part 390 . As used in this part: Administrative takedown funds means funds FMCSA deducts each fiscal year from the amounts made available for MCSAP and the High Priority Program for expenses incurred by FMCSA for training State and local government employees and for the administration of the programs. Administrator means the administrator of FMCSA. Border State means a State that shares a