Codi Butler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Fourth Court of Appeals “has twice held that a request for accommodation is a protected activity under the TCHRA” and stating that the Third Court “disagrees with [its] sister court’s interpretation of Section 21.055”
• “Unlike the analogous provision of the ADA, [Section 21.055] includes no mention of the exercise of rights otherwise granted by statute—like the right to request accommodation—as protected activity that might give rise to a retaliation claim.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).