Skip to main content
Eleventh Circuit· 3/10/2000

Davis v. Florida Power & Light Co.

Citations

  • 205 F.3d 1301
  • 10 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 492
  • 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 3665

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that utility company’s “aggressive same-day connect and reconnect policy” made overtime an essential function for connect and disconnect employees
  • holding that a job function can be considered “essential” even if it is not listed in the formal job description, as long as there is other evidence of essentialness
  • concluding “overtime work . . . is akin to job presence, which has been held to be an essential function of a job.” (citations omitted)
  • noting that “job presence [ ] has been held to be an essential function of a job”
  • noting that “job presence [ ] has been held to be an essential function of a job”
  • noting that job presence is “an essential function of a job”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Black, Hull, Goodwin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Davis v. Florida Power & Light Co.

2 other CourtListener records share 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.