In re Skurat

How courts have described this case

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

• referring to multiple sclerosis as a disability and distinguishing it from the plaintiff’s proffered basis of discrimination, his inability to drive
• referring to multiple sclerosis as a disability and distinguishing it from the plaintiff’s proffered basis of discrimination, his inability to drive
• rejecting plaintiff’s ADA claim because the ADA “is inapplicable because the distinction in the present case is not based upon Flight’s disability, multiple sclerosis, but rather upon his inability to drive” (emphasis added)
• rejecting plaintiffs ADA claim because the ADA “is inapplicable because the distinction in the present case is not based upon Flight’s disability, múltiple sclerosis, but rather upon his inability to drive” (emphasis added)
• rejecting plaintiff’s ADA claim because the ADA “is inapplicable because the distinction in the present case is not based upon Flight’s disability, multiple sclerosis, but rather upon his inability to drive” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).