Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pacific Railway

How courts have described this case

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

• noting, in a slightly different context, the questionable applicability of certain ADA retaliation claims given the text of § 12203(a) but concluding that making such a request is protected activity
• “[A]n individualized showing of a substantial limitation is essential because of the differences that exist between people with [monocular vision].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).