Eric Jones v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General

How courts have described this case

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

• finding it improper for an “employer ... [to] wait[ ] for a legal, legitimate reason to fortuitously materialize, and then use [ ] it to cover up his true, longstanding motivations for firing the employee”
• “The Rehabilitation Act, not the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), constitutes the exclu- sive remedy for a federal employee alleging disability-based discrimina- tion.”
• “The Rehabilitation Act, not the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), constitutes the exclu- sive remedy for a federal employee alleging disability-based discrimina- tion.”
• “The Rehabilitation Act, not the [ADA], Tucker originally filed her action in this Court’s Dayton seat of court. (See Doc. 19, #230
• Once a defendant articulates a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision, “the remaining question is whether that reason was simply a pretext designed to mask discrimination”
• statement creating two distinct inferences does not constitute direct evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).