Mary Jo C. v. New York State and Local Retirement System et ano.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “dispute [that] involves allegations of employment discrimination . . . [is] clearly governed by Title I of the ADA”
• holding that the ADA “contemplates modification to state laws, thereby permitting preemption of inconsistent state laws, when necessary to effectuate Title II’s reasonable modification provision”
• noting that the Rehabilitation Act imposes an exhaustion requirement for claims 4 “[A] party waives any arguments not presented to the magistrate judge.” Castorina v. Saul, No. 19-CV-991 AJN BCM, 2020 WL 6781078, at (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2020) (citation omitted
• invoking rule in case brought pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131, et seq.
• “It is a factual issue whether a plaintiff’s proposed modifications- amount to ‘reasonable modifications’ which should be implemented, or ‘fundamental alterations,’ which the state may reject.” (alterations & citations omitted)
• “Courts have construed [§794a] of the Rehabilitation Act . . . as imposing [an exhaustion requirement] as to claims against a federal employer.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).