Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “misconduct — even misconduct related to a disability — is not itself a disability, and an employer is free to fire an employee on that basis”
• noting that once “[defense witnesses] repeatedly testified that maintaining store security was an essential function ... [,] [plaintiff] offered no evidence to the contrary”
• noting that provision of store security is of such a nature that it “cannot reasonably be abandoned for even ‘a brief period’ ”
• determining that the employer had no duty to hire an additional person to perform the essential security function for a salesperson who experienced seizures
• noting that provision of store security is of such a nature that it \cannot reasonably be abandoned for even 'a brief period'\
• noting that provision of store security is of such a nature that it \cannot reasonably be abandoned for even 'a brief period'\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).