Gilman v. German Lithographic Stone Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, because no reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff would have been able to perform his essential job functions, the plaintiff’s request was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA
• holding that, because no reasonable jury could find that the plaintiff would have been able to perform his essential job functions, the plaintiff’s request for indefinite leave was not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA
• providing that a plaintiff 28 cannot maintain an ADA retaliation claim premised on a failure to accommodate as it is merely an ADA discrimination claim repackaged
• stating that when a “plaintiff claims that he could not do his job with or without reasonable accommodation at the time of his adverse employment determination, he cannot make out a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA”
• dismissing the plaintiff’s retaliation claim that was a “repackaged” statement of his failure to accommodate claim
• dismissing the plaintiff’s retaliation claim that was a “repackaged” statement of his failure to accommodate claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).