Audrey Jacques, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dimarzio, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where “the 16 district court was made fully aware of [a] position . . . and the trial judge 17 discussed and explicitly rejected [the] position in its written opinion on the 18 motion,” “the issue is not waived on appeal”
• distinguishing “‘getting along with others’ (a normative or evaluative concept) and ‘interacting with others’ (which is essentially mechanical)”
• applying this standard even where the district court provided improper jury instruction
• accepting “the Ninth Circuit’s premise that ‘interacting with others’ is a ‘major life activity’ under the ADA” but establishing a new standard for determining whether “a limitation on this activity is ‘substantial’ for ADA purposes”
• plaintiff does not satisfy standard of substantial limitation in interacting with others where his communication is merely “inappropriate, ineffective, or unsuccessful”
• an abrasive attitude and “personality conflicts” insufficient to establish a qualifying disability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).