A. P. F. v. C. M. C.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that employer could not “credibly” argue that employee was unqualified for the role where it made a “conditional offer of employment”
• agreeing that, under § 12102(3)(A), for an employer to regard an individual as having a disability, the 14 Case: 18-11121 Date Filed: 09/12/2019 Page: 15 of 33 employer “must have regarded him as having a current impairment”
• finding irreparable “dignitary harm” after a plaintiff was denied a job due to their disability
• finding irreparable “dignitary harm” after a plaintiff was denied a job due to their disability
• rejecting employer’s argument that it was uncertain about the state of its employee’s back where the evidence showed it assumed the employee was impaired when it revoked a job offer
• describing the pre-2008 version 2 of the ADA as requiring that “an impairment had to substantially limit a major life activity 3 for the discrimination to be actionable under the ‘regarded as’ prong”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).