Missick v. City of New York

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 doctor’s note stating plaintiff should only do “limited work” and not get “stressed out” was insufficient to show a disability
• holding that “[d]efendants' alleged failure to accommodate [Lozada’s] disability subsequent to an [Act] . . . protected request cannot be bootstrapped into a viable disability retaliation claim.
• “[A] pattern of simple discourtesy, without more, has consistently been held insufficient to trigger hostile work environment protections under state or federal law”
• “The mere fact of past satisfactory performance, followed by negative feedback, is not suggestive of impermissible animus.”
• “[A] pattern of simple discourtesy, without more, has consistently been held insufficient to trigger hostile work environment protections under state or federal law”
• plaintiff’s inability to climb stairs fails to “demonstrate that she suffers from an ADA-cognizable disability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).