Allmond v. Akal Security, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• Courts “discuss [ADA and RA] claims together and rely on cases construing those statutes interchangeably.”
• “Because the same standards govern discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, we discuss those claims together and rely on cases construing those statutes interchangeably.”
• “Because the same standards govern discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, we discuss those claims together and rely on cases construing those statutes interchangeably.”
• “Because the same standards govern discrimination claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, we discuss those claims together and rely on cases construing those statutes interchangeably.”
• “To benefit from the affirmative defense [in 42 U.S.C. § 12113(a)], an employer must prove that the pertinent qualification standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
• “[W]e focus our attention solely on the affirmative business-necessity defense and its application to the hearing-aid ban. We express no view on whether Allmond is disabled under federal law and just assume that he is disabled for the sake of discussion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).