Schluter v. Industrial Coils, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating EEOC’s interpretation directly conflicts with statutory language requiring plaintiff to show impairment substantially limits a major life activity
• requiring plaintiff to show how condition affects her in fact, rather than how it would affect her hypothetically without medication
• “If an insulin-dependent diabetic can control her condition with the use of insulin ... she cannot argue that her life is substantially limited by her condition.”
• “Plaintiff alleges only that defendant removed her from her supervisor position because of her limited eyesight. Thus, plaintiff’s evidence of her insulin dependence and her insulin reactions is not relevant to the disability inquiry in this case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).