Albert James Conant v. City of Hibbing

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that mere fact that a defendant is aware of a plaintiffs past medical condition and might perceive that the plaintiff still has the medical condition or is likely to develop a medical condition in the future is insufficient to prove a “regarded as” claim
• finding no reasonable jury could conclude the employer regarded the plaintiff as disabled where the employer had concluded the plaintiff was unable to perform a particular job due to a 30-pound lifting restriction
• doctor’s report stated that Gonant should not lift more than thirty pounds and should not bend or squat
• doctor’s report stated that Conant should not lift more than thirty pounds and should not bend or squat
• The mere fact that a defendant is aware of a plaintiffs past medical condition and might perceive that the plaintiff still has the medical condition or is likely to develop a medical condition in the future is insufficient to prove a “regarded as” claim
• The mere fact that a defendant is aware of a plaintiffs past medicál condition and might perceive that the plaintiff still has the medical condition or is likely to develop a medical condition in the future is insufficient to prove a “regarded as” claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).