Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Aramark Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “because we review the district court’s 12 judgment, not its reasoning, we may affirm on any ground properly raised”
• stating that “[ujnder the ADA, then, “subterfuge to evade” still requires intent”
• “[B]ecause we review the district court’s judgment, not its reasoning, we may affirm on any ground properly raised.”
• “[B]ecause we review the district court’s judgment, not its reasoning, we may affirm on any ground properly raised.”
• ‘‘[B]ecause we review the district court’s judgment, not its reasoning, we may affirm on any ground properly raised.’’
• “Neither appellant explains how the plan amendments could be a subterfuge to evade the ADA and discriminate against [appellant] if they did not affect her.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).