Patricia E. Homeyer v. Stanley Tulchin Associates, Inc. And Alan Fox

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that district court erred in dismissing ADA complaint where plaintiff alleged both a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working and the major life activity of breathing
• holding that under liberal federal notice pleading standards, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded ADA claim by alleging that she suffered from chronic severe allergic rhinitis and sinusitis which substantially impaired her ability to breathe
• holding that under liberal federal notice pleading standards, plaintiff sufficiently pleaded ADA claim by alleging that she suffered from chronic severe allergic rhinitis and sinusitis which substantially impaired her ability to breathe
• finding that the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's ADA failure to accommodate claim because it did not consider allergies to be a disability was premature at the motion to dismiss stage
• reversing a dismissal where the plaintiff “alleged that her physical condition (chronic severe [allergies]) substantially impaired her ability to breathe and that her condition, when aggravated by [secondhand smoke], substantially limited her ability to work”
• “Some impairments may be dis- abling for particular individuals but not for others . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).