Disability discrimination

“Thomas need only show that Hill terminated him because of his actual or a perceived physical impairment, regardless of whether the impairment limits a major life activity.  Hill’s arguments to the contrary are simply wrong.  Thomas cannot meet his burden, however, if the impairment is “transitory and minor.”  Given the facts in this case, the

“Here, the district court applied the stray remarks doctrine before determining whether the plaintiff had failed to produce substantial evidence of pretext and then refused to consider those remarks in determining pretext.”

E.E.O.C. v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Ops. Co., 537 Fed. Appx. 437, 443 (5th Cir. July 26, 2013) (Davis, Graves, and Higginson, JJ.).

“In the letter itself, Hill raised Thomas’ medical condition, the need for Thomas to seek a less stressful job, and Hill’s desire to reduce costs. Yet, before and after Thomas’ termination, Hill hired a total of three employees to perform Thomas’ job duties. Under these circumstances, Thomas has presented a genuine issue of material fact

“Hill also offered at least some legitimate reasons for Thomas’ termination: that Thomas had not indicated if or when he would return and that he had in mind Thomas’ derogatory behavior towards him.  However, those reasons are offset by the contradictory evidence.  Thomas had indicated in his emails to Hill and others that he intended

“Leissner’s alleged warning to McMann not to die in someone’s apartment, may enable a reasonable jury to find that Leissner regarded McMann as having an impairment, namely heart disease, which substantially limits him in the major life activity of working.”

McMann v. Greystar Management Services, LP, CA No. 1:12-CV-909, 2013 WL 6243847 at *5 (W.D.

“Requesting reasonable accommodations is generally a protected activity against retaliation under the ADA; however, first a plaintiff must have a good faith belief that he or she was disabled or perceived as disabled.”

Williams v. Rocktenn, 2013 WL 5960671 at *14 (W.D. La. November 6, 2013) (Trimble, J.).

 

“[Plaintiff] can establish the third prima facie element, that she was subjected to an adverse action based on her disability, because [employer] readily admits that [Plaintiff] was terminated because she was unable to return to work without lifting restrictions at the time her FMLA leave expired.” Molina, 840 F. Supp. 2d at 1004.

“Here, there is no evidence that [Plaintiff] is physically limited by his prosthetic leg. His only need is to be able to readjust his prosthetic leg every so often so that it does not break his skin or fall off. Therefore, if Plaintiff were given the breaks he requested, the issues involved with his prosthesis

“[T]he job description states that the supervisor ‘may perform manual labor’ . . . . Just because . . . the supervisor sometimes ‘may perform’ such labor does not override the consideration that the ability to perform physical labor is not an essential or even mandatory component of the supervisor’s job. Therefore, [Plaintiff]’s inability to