Fradus Lee Anderson v. University of Wisconsin

How courts have described this case

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

• “Nothing in the record” on summary judgment “suggest[ed] that the [defendant’s] decision was based on stereotypes about alcoholism as opposed to honest judgments about how Anderson had performed in fact and could be expected to perform.”
• relevant question in assessing if one is “otherwise qualified” is not whether student plaintiff can adequately perform, but whether defendant institution would have admitted student with same academic qualifications who was not handicapped
• “The [Rehabilitation] Act does not designate a jury, rather than the faculty of the Law School, as the body to decide whether a would-be student is up to snuff.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).