Doe v. United States Postal Service

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that medical inquiries where an employer was “trying to determine whether [the employee] was unable to perform the functions of [their] position” are permissible
• explaining that the Rehabilitation Act’s medical inquiries and confidentiality provisions apply where an employer is “trying to determine whether [the employee] was unable to perform the functions of [her] position” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• reversing summary judgment even though plaintiffs “evidence of retrieval is purely circumstantial” because “we generally draw no distinction between the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence”
• reversing summary judgment even though plaintiff’s “evidence of retrieval is purely circumstantial” because “we generally draw no distinction between the probative value of direct and circumstantial evidence”
• “The Postal Service conditioned Doe’s receipt of FMLA leave on his submission of supporting medical documentation, as the FMLA authorized it to do.”
• supervisor’s letter asking employee to explain the nature of his illness was an “inquiry” triggering confidentiality obligations because employer knew employee had taken weeks of sick leave, despite that employer did not know employee’s precise condition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).