Skip to main content
First Circuit· 10/9/2002

Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

Citations

  • 306 F.3d 1162
  • 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21070
  • 2002 WL 31259497

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that the “purpose of this provision is largely to protect those who have recovered or are recovering from substantially limiting impairments from discrimination based on their medical history”
  • affirming summary judgment based on the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate that the employer regarded him as “unfit for either a class or a broad range of jobs”
  • affirming judgment on alternative legal ground not adopted by district court while acknowledging district court’s ground was not incorrect
  • affirming summary judgment based on the plaintiffs failure to demonstrate that the employer regarded him as “unfit for either a class or a broad range of jobs”
  • “There is no question that alcoholism is an impairment for purposes of * * * analysis under the ADA.”
  • plaintiff’s long and documented record of alcoholism did not establish a disability because the record did not show that plaintiff’s alcoholism “significantly inter- fered with a major life activity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Boudin, Gibson, Torruella

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

81 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.