Mary M. Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Incorporated of California, T/a Kee Business College Campus National Education Centers, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an individual that “cannot meet the attendance requirements of the job at issue cannot be considered a ‘qualified’ individual protected by the ADA”
• holding that an employee who “missed almost forty days of work during a seven-month period” was not otherwise qualified
• holding that \[a]n employee who cannot meet the attendance requirements of the job at issue cannot be considered a `qualified' individual protected by the ADA\
• holding that ADA offered no protection for employee unable to meet attendance requirements of a university teacher
• holding that a defendant-employer in an ADA action was entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff-employee was not qualified for the position
• holding that a plaintiff must be able to “meet all of [her] program’s requirements in spite of [her] handicap”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).