Shirley Weigel v. Target Stores, a Division of Dayton Hudson Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that affidavit’s “naked conclusion unsupported by any factual foundation” did not create an issue for trial
• concluding that McDonnell Douglas framework is “unnecessary and inappropriate” for a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA
• stating that the question of whether a plaintiff is a “qualified individual” “necessarily involves an individualized assessment of the individual and the relevant position’
• explaining that an SSA total disability determination, while relevant, is not dispositive of the issue of an ADA claimant's status as a “qualified individual with a disability”
• affirming summary judgment for the employer where the employer conceded the plaintiff's depression qualified as a disability but where the plaintiff had not shown that she was qualified for the job
• asserting, without giving reasons, that “there was a good chance” that the plaintiff could return to work

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).