for the Best Interest and Protection of H v. a Mentally Ill Person

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that summary judgment for the employer was inappro- priate on a failure-to-accommodate claim because there remained gen- uine evidence supporting the plaintiff’s case
• concluding that the plaintiff’s “request in mid-April for some additional time to gather updated medical information as to when her doctors would release her to return to work was a plausible reasonable accommodation”
• noting that “[e]stablishing a prima face claim is not onerous” and identifying four elements a plaintiff must show to establish a prima facie failure to accommodate claim: (1) the plaintiff was disabled, (2) the plaintiff was otherwise qualified, (3
• noting discrimination under the ADA includes not making reasonable accommodations for an otherwise qualified individual
• finding inaccuracies and the manner of termination could show that the asserted legitimate reasons were pretext for ADA-prohibited discrimi- nation
• stating that plaintiff’s requests triggered defendant’s duty to Case No. 22-CV-229-FAB-JAR 17 engage in good faith in an interactive process to determine her limitations and consider whether the requested accommodations or any other that may come up would allow plaintiff to return to work

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).