Leland Melvin Otto v. City of Victoria

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the plaintiff “cites no evidence suggesting that a [requested accommodation] would have addressed his work restrictions concerning heavy lifting”
• proceeding “directly to the ultimate question of discrimination” and finding the fact that younger workers assumed the duties of the plaintiff after he was terminated could not, standing alone, support a reasonable inference of age discrimination
• employer is not required to permit employee to perform a job function the employee’s doctor has forbidden
• “[Plaintiff], by contrast, was an at-will employee, and the City’s termination of his employment did not deprive him of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).