Loulseged v. Akzo Nobel Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that when an employer’s unwillingness to engage in a good faith interactive process leads to a failure to reasonably accommodate an employee, the employer violates the ADA
• explaining that duty to launch interactive process and to provide concrete request for reasonable accommodation is on employee
• affirming judgment as a matter of law where breakdown of interactive process was attributable to plaintiff
• finding that the employee, not the employer, was responsible for the breakdown in the interactive process when the employee quit before it was clear there would be no further discussions or that the employer expected the employee to work without any further accommodations
• granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of an employer when the employee voluntarily quit—“to hold otherwise would reward [the employee’s] unilateral withdrawal from a [process designed for her own benefit”
• “It is difficult to judge the reasonableness of accommodations when the employee withdraws before we can say with any authority what these accommodations would have been.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).