Marschand v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• employer “assumption” that employee was unable to work on or around trains or in high stress situations was “understandable given that that is how [the employee] defined himself’
• \the employer does not `regard the employ ee as disabled simply by finding the employee to be incapable of satisfying the singular demands of a particular job'\
• to prove that an employer regarded him as disabled, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant \knew of his injury and believed that he was substantially limited because of the injury\
• Plaintiff “has offered nothing beyond his own subjective opinion that he could perform various other jobs at [the Rail road]. This general averment falls far short of [Plaintiffs] summary judgment burden.”
• discussing extent of duty to reassign employee with disability

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).