Patsy L. Conner v. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that employer's refusal to accommodate plaintiff's disability after it terminated her was not a continuing violation because an employer cannot continue to discriminate against an employee when it no longer employs her
• noting that allowing an ADA claimant\to restart the stat- ute of limitations by sending a letter requesting reasonable accommo- dations after she has been unequivocally fired would destroy the statute of limitations\
• noting that “[the plaintiff’s] employment relationship with Reckitt & Colman ended when she was fired” and so “Reckitt & Colman cannot continue to discriminate against [the plaintiff] when it no longer employs her”
• statute of limitations for ADA claim begins to run at time of discriminatory act, not when the act’s consequences become most painful

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).