Fleming v. Bernauer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred in relying on case law and regulations that failed to account for the ADAAA to hold that an impairment is not substantially limiting unless it involves permanent or long-term effects
• holding that the district court erred in relying on case law and regulations that failed to account for the ADAAA to hold that an impairment is not substantially limiting unless it involves permanent or long-term effects
• holding that the district court erred in relying on case law and regulations that failed to account for the ADAAA to hold that an impairment is not substantially Steel, Inc., 130 F.3d 1180, 1185 (6th Cir. 1997
• stating that the ADAAA was enacted for the “express purpose” of rejecting a narrow reading of “substantially limits” by several Supreme Court decisions
• noting that 5 temporal duration of an impairment is “one factor” to be considered
• finding a complaint plausibly alleged limitations on 11 major life activities where the plaintiff claimed her injury rendered her “unable to perform 12 some of the core physical tasks included in her job description, such as lifting, reaching, 13 fingering, and handling”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).