20 Cited authorities

Bragdon v. Abbott
524 U.S. 624 (1998) Cited 1,645 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that DOJ's administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
490 U.S. 642 (1989) Cited 980 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg
527 U.S. 555 (1999) Cited 680 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that although vision-impaired individuals may not have "an onerous burden" in demonstrating disability and "ordinarily will meet the [ADA]'s definition of disability," they must still offer evidence of "limitation in terms of their own experience"
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta
2 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 1993) Cited 2,547 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that protecting employees from workplace hazards is a “business necessity” under Title VII
Dothard v. Rawlinson
433 U.S. 321 (1977) Cited 790 times
Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal
536 U.S. 73 (2002) Cited 328 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the ADA's direct-threat defense may apply not only to “other individuals in the workplace,” as the statute states, but to the disabled individual himself
Bates v. U. P. S
511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 744 times 10 Legal Analyses
Holding where claim involved facially discriminatory qualification standard, the Teamsters burden-shifting protocol is inapplicable
Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores
164 F.3d 1243 (9th Cir. 1999) Cited 312 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that unpaid medical leave may be a reasonable accommodation where requested by an employee
Barth v. Gelb
2 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1993) Cited 196 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where the employer concedes that disability played a role in its employment decision, the McDonnell Douglas principles are inapposite, and the appropriate focus is on the question whether the employee's disability could be reasonably accommodated
Winfrey v. City of Chicago
259 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 2001) Cited 77 times
Holding that an employer may not be punished for going beyond obligations of ADA by being "deemed to have conceded the reasonableness of so far-reaching an accommodation" (quoting Amadio v. Ford Motor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 929 (7th Cir. 2001))
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
Section 12112 - Discrimination
42 U.S.C. § 12112 Cited 13,592 times 159 Legal Analyses
Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination
Section 12111 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 12111 Cited 8,048 times 60 Legal Analyses
Adopting the definition of "person" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e for purposes of Title I of the ADA
Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities
29 U.S.C. § 791 Cited 2,276 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 . . ."
Section 12113 - Defenses
42 U.S.C. § 12113 Cited 403 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"
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"
Section 1630.15 - Defenses
29 C.F.R. § 1630.15 Cited 247 times 8 Legal Analyses
Explaining that it is a defense to liability under the ADA "that another [f]ederal law or regulation prohibits an action (including the provision of a particular reasonable accommodation) that would otherwise be required by this part"

Kapche v. Gonzales

20 Cited authorities

Holding that DOJ's administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference

Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union

Holding that although vision-impaired individuals may not have "an onerous burden" in demonstrating disability and "ordinarily will meet the [ADA]'s definition of disability," they must still offer evidence of "limitation in terms of their own experience"

Holding that protecting employees from workplace hazards is a “business necessity” under Title VII

Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors

Holding that the ADA's direct-threat defense may apply not only to “other individuals in the workplace,” as the statute states, but to the disabled individual himself

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

Holding that unpaid medical leave may be a reasonable accommodation where requested by an employee

Holding that where the employer concedes that disability played a role in its employment decision, the McDonnell Douglas principles are inapposite, and the appropriate focus is on the question whether the employee's disability could be reasonably accommodated

Holding that an employer may not be punished for going beyond obligations of ADA by being "deemed to have conceded the reasonableness of so far-reaching an accommodation" (quoting Amadio v. Ford Motor Co., 238 F.3d 919, 929 (7th Cir. 2001))

Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination

Adopting the definition of "person" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e for purposes of Title I of the ADA

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 . . ."

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"

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"

Explaining that it is a defense to liability under the ADA "that another [f]ederal law or regulation prohibits an action (including the provision of a particular reasonable accommodation) that would otherwise be required by this part"