Chiles v. Machine Shop, Inc

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under the PWDCRA, a plaintiff must show that the impairment significantly restricts their ability to perform “at least a wide range of jobs”
• “[The Michigan Court of Appeals] and the Michigan Supreme Court have noted that the federal [ADA] and the PWDCRA share the same purpose and use similar definitions and analyses, and both courts have relied on the ADA in interpreting the PWDCRA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).