Earl v. Mervyns, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when an employee fails to identify a reasonable accommodation, an employer “is under no duty to engage in an interactive process . . .”
• holding that punctuality was an essential function of plaintiffs job as Store Area Coordinator
• holding that punctuality was an essential function for a store area coordinator
• explaining that a “qualified individual” is an individual who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions and job requirements of [her previous] position”
• finding attendance was an essential function of employee’s job and that employee was not a qualified individual with a disability due to her unpredictable tardiness
• finding attendance was an essential function of employee’s job and that employee was not a qualified individual with a disability due to her unpredictable tardiness

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).