Anthony Rorrer v. City of Stow

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[t]he district court . . . erred in prematurely deciding whether driving an apparatus during an emergency was an ‘essential’ function of a Stow firefighter because the evidence creates a genuine dispute about that fact”
• finding that not every member of the firefighting crew needed to be able to drive the emergency vehicles
• stating that “the individualized inquiry is an interactive process in which both parties have a duty to participate in good faith”
• stating that in “[t]he individualized inquiry … both parties have a duty to participate in good faith”
• finding that not every member of the firefighting crew needed to be able to drive the emergency vehicles
• explaining that an employer can be required to modify a job description to accommodate an employee if the modification would not require any change in “essential” job duties.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).