Phillip T. Still v. Freeport-Mcmoran, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, even though plaintiff was blind in one eye and had limited peripheral vision, his partial blindness did not substantially limit his sight because he was able to perform normal daily activities, like driving cars
• holding monocular vision not a substantial limit on major life activity of working
• ADA imposes no “obligation to create a new job for [an employee] at another location”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).