Gluck v. Reuben Rose & 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 an employer cannot “use its failure to engage in the interactive process to argue that [the employee’s] proposed accommodation was unreasonable”
• explaining that an “once an employee requests an accommodation” that triggers the employer’s “duty” (cleaned up)
• “A reasonable jury could find that [the employee’s] proposed accommodation was reasonable from the fact that [the employer] considered it reasonable.”
• “Since the record reflects that Blanchet’s claim was based on Charter’s failure to accommodate, it necessarily involves direct evidence of discrimination under the ADA.”
• “Employees can prove discrimination in two ways, either directly or indirectly, and each has its own test.”
• “We must therefore determine whether [Plaintiff] would be ‘otherwise qualified’ to perform her essential job functions with her proposed accommodation, in other words, when she returned to work.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).