Gelabert-Ladenheim v. American Airlines, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that though physically impaired, an employee was not disabled because she was not substantially limited in any major life activity
• noting that ADA requires an “individualized inquiry,” and “[wjhen the major life activity of working is at issue ... the plaintiff ‘assumes a more fact-specific burden of proof ”
• performing \individualized inquiry\ by which a court determines whether a plaintiff is substantially limited in the activity of working
• relying in part on plaintiffs pre- and post-impairment work history, court concludes that plaintiff was not “substantially limited” in her ability to work
• plaintiffs con-clusory statements as to her inability to work in a variety of jobs held to be insufficient

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).