Elkholy v. Dawkins

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 plaintiff was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he made sworn statements that he “became unable to work . . . on May 8, 2016” and that, “as of the date of filing the [Social Security] application, August 23, 2016, he was ‘still disabled’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).