309 Bakery Corp. v. Associated Mut. Ins. Coop.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an employer who had granted a light-duty accommodation was not required “to extend such a dramatic reduction in its work requirement indefinitely”
• holding that “employers do not need to change a job’s essential functions or split them across multiple employees” or “require other employees to work ‘harder or longer’” (citations omitted)
• recognizing that “employers do not need to change a job’s essential functions”
• noting that reassignment under EEOC standards is an accommodation of “last resort”
• explaining that although employers must reasonably accommodate their disabled employees, “employers do not need to change a job’s essential functions or split them across multiple employees” or “require other employees to work ‘harder or longer’” (citations omitted)
• affirming summary judgment when individuals hired for alternate positions had more experience or surpassed the plaintiff in areas “central to [the open] position”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).