Rohr v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling job description is not conclusive evidence of essential job function
• finding genuine issue of material fact as to whether plaintiff had a substantial impairment in eating where he described controlling his disease through a combination of diet and insulin as “being on a chemical rollercoaster” (quotation marks omitted)
• “Nevertheless, because the ADAAA sheds light on Congress’ original intent when it enacted the ADA, a brief discussion of the amendment is appropriate.”
• “If daily insulin injections alone more or less stabilized [plaintiffs] blood sugar levels, such that any limitation imposed on his diet would be minor, then [his] major life activity of eating might not be substantially limited.”
• “[D]iabetes will be assessed in terms of its limitations on major life activities when the diabetic does not take insulin injections or medicine and does not require behavioral adaptations such as a strict diet.”
• “[B]ecause the test tended to screen out an individual 25 with diabetes-related high blood pressure, [the employer] has not established that it is 26 entitled to summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).