Jeffrey B. Newman v. Ghs Osteopathic, Inc., Parkview Hospital Division. Jeffrey B. Newman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Title VII caselaw can be instructive in evaluating ADA claims
• explaining that Title VII’s burden-shifting rules apply to claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act
• discussing courts’ application of Title VII concepts in cases involving the ADEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
• holding no abuse of discretion where district court refused to exclude witnesses’ testimony because party’s possible failure to disclose witnesses in self-executing disclosures and in interrogatory responses was harmless since opponent knew of witnesses “well before trial”
• noting that Rule 37 was written in mandatory terms but holding that “[t]he imposition of sanctions for abuse of discovery under [Rule 37] is a matter within the discretion of the trial court” (quoting Orjias v. Stevenson, 31 F.3d 995, 1005 (10th Cir. 1994)
• explaining that Rule 37 is discretionary but “is designed to provide a strong inducement for disclosure of Rule 26(a) material” (quoting Harlow v. Eli Lilly & Co., 1995 WL 319728, at (N.D. Ill. May 25, 1995)); Konstantopoulos, 112 F.3d at 719 (3d Cir. 1997

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).