Jones v. University of the District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that § 794 of the Rehabilitation Act “provides remedies set forth in Title VI, which does not explicitly require the exhaustion of remedies”
• holding court lacked jurisdiction over ongoing ADA failure-to-accommodate claims because EEOC complaint alleged only two discrete denials of accommodation
• noting “§ 794 of the Rehabilitation Act proscribes discrimination by executive agencies and federally funded entities and provides remedies set forth in Title VI, which does not explicitly require the exhaustion of administrative remedies”
• noting “[the section of the] Rehabilitation Act [that] proscribes discrimination by executive agencies and federally funded entities and provides remedies set forth in Title VI, which does not explicitly require the exhaustion of administrative remedies”
• “[A] defendant can still prevail on summary judgment despite its failure to engage in the interactive process if the plaintiff fails to show that a reasonable accommodation was possible.”
• rejecting employee’s request for permanent light-duty status as unreasonable accommodation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).