Gregory C. Mallett v. Wisconsin Division of Vocational Rehabilitation and Judy R. Norman-Nunnery

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in recent years has taken a more restrictive view of implying private rights of action in federal statutes
• “‘The word solely provides the key: the discrimination must result from the handicap and from the handicap alone.’ ”
• section 1983 is not an appropriate means of remedying an isolated violation of an otherwise legal rehabilitation plan
• “Mallett was not ‘otherwise qualified’” within the meaning of Section 504 to receive the vocational benefits in question because he “would not have been eligible to receive any rehabilitative services in the absence of” his disability
• finding no private right of action
• which itself relies on Wilder

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).