Jacquelyn M. Quint v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company, Jacquelyn M. Quint v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that after Wright, CBA that did not “explicitly mention[]” arbitration of discrimination claims “pose[d] no bar to the instant action”
• holding that statement that the plaintiff would have 11 “decreased concentration skills” was too vague to be useful in the disability 12 determination
• stating that “[t]he inability to lift heavy objects and perform repetitive manual tasks can translate across a broad spectrum of physically demanding jobs”
• allowing that defendant-employer need not prove that there existed suitable positions where plaintiff-employee failed to apply for any other jobs for the eighteen-month period between her termination and the date of judgment
• recognizing the exception “reliev[ing] the defendant-employer of the burden to prove the availability of substantially equivalent jobs ... once it has been shown that the former employee made no effort to secure suitable employment”
• rejecting a plaintiff’s complaint “that she experienced 18 pain approaching the highest level imaginable” as “inconsistent with the ‘minimal, 19 conservative treatment’ that she received”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).