Commonwealth v. Kimmel, L.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a district court “properly granted summary judgment on [the employee’s] retaliation claim” where “there [was] no evidence to support causation”
• stating that a plaintiff must show that retaliation for protected activity was the “but-for” cause of an adverse action
• explaining that the “third element” of an ADA retaliation claim “requires a showing of but-for causation”
• framing issue on appeal as “whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled her to perform either her CSO duties or the essential duties”
• affirming district court's determination that the plaintiff's request for “an indefinite extension of her light-duty status ... was unreasonable as a matter of law”
• framing issue on appeal as “whether Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled her to perform either her CSO duties or the essential duties”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).