Skip to main content
Second Circuit· 10/19/1995

Flight v. Gloeckler

Citations

  • 68 F.3d 61
  • 1995 WL 613895

How courts have described this case

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

  • referring to multiple sclerosis as a disability and distinguishing it from the plaintiff’s proffered basis of discrimination, his inability to drive
  • referring to multiple sclerosis as a disability and distinguishing it from the plaintiff’s proffered basis of discrimination, his inability to drive
  • rejecting plaintiff’s ADA claim because the ADA “is inapplicable because the distinction in the present case is not based upon Flight’s disability, multiple sclerosis, but rather upon his inability to drive” (emphasis added)
  • rejecting plaintiffs ADA claim because the ADA “is inapplicable because the distinction in the present case is not based upon Flight’s disability, múltiple sclerosis, but rather upon his inability to drive” (emphasis added)
  • rejecting plaintiff’s ADA claim because the ADA “is inapplicable because the distinction in the present case is not based upon Flight’s disability, multiple sclerosis, but rather upon his inability to drive” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cardamone, Lumbard, Mahoney

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.