Rosemarie CARR, Appellant, v. Janet RENO, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “[t]he U.S. Attorney’s Office 4:00 p.m. deadline renders a flexible schedule an undue hardship” because others would have to do plaintiffs work on a regular basis
• holding that an employer was entitled to summary judgment where a plaintiffs position required physical presence to pick up and code papers daily and her requested accommodation would not have enabled her to perform that function
• finding that plaintiffs “prolonged, frequent and unpredictable absences render her unqualified for any government job”
• noting that “regular hours on a consistent basis” often remain a job requirement even when an employee is permitted to work from home
• stating that the district court erred in analyzing the two interrelated claims separately
• holding “to require an employer to accept an open-ended ‘work when able’ schedule for a time-sensitive job would stretch ‘reasonable accommodation’ to absurd proportions. . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).