Sewell v. Bennett

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that separate, nonresponsive statement of facts by nonmovant is “neither contemplated nor permitted by the Local Rules”
• explaining that separate, nonresponsive statement of facts by nonmovant is “neither contemplated nor permitted by the Local Rules”
• stating that a separate, nonresponsive statement of material facts by the non-moving party is “neither contemplated nor permitted by the Local Rules”
• noting that a separate statement that is not responsive to movant's statement “is neither contemplated nor permitted by the Local Rules”
• declining to consider separate counter- statement of facts that was non-responsive to the movant’s statement because it was “neither contemplated nor permitted by the Local Rules”
• “It is well-settled that adverse employment decisions under the ADA include an employer’s failure or refusal to reasonably accommodate an individual’s disability.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).