Raymond Battle, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming grant of summary judgment because plaintiff could not perform essential functions of his job at the time he sought to return to work
• refusing to grant judgment as a matter of law to the employer on the good-faith issue when the jury could conclude that the employee needed accommodation only for “a marginal function that easily could have been eliminated”
• “Under the ADA, if no reasonable accommodation is available, an employer is not hable for failing to engage in a good-faith interactive process.”
• “Under the ADA, if no reasonable accommodation is available, 2 an employer is not liable for failing to engage in a good-faith interactive process.”
• first quoting Brown v. Lester E. Cox Med. Ctrs., 286 F.3d 1040, 1045 (8th Cir. 2002); and then quoting Shaver v. Indep. Stave Co., 350 F.3d 716, 720 (8th Cir. 2003)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).