Dale Ross v. Campbell Soup Company

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that under the regarded as prong, an individual can invoke the ADA’s protections “even if he is not, in fact, disabled”
• advising that the “question [of] the employer’s motive[ ]is one rarely susceptible to resolution at the summary judgment stage”
• “[T]he standard mandates that [the defendant] must have regarded [the plaintiff] as significantly limited in his ability to lift....”
• “[T]he standard mandates that [the defendant] must have regarded [the plaintiff] as significantly limited in his ability to lift . . . .”
• “That the note’s author would think to identify Ross with the scrawled post-script ‘back case’ demonstrates that there is at least a genuine issue of material fact that Campbell Soup Co. regarded Ross through the lens of his medical condition.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).