Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that ADA disability requires showing (i) an impairment (ii) substantially limiting (iii) a major life activity
• noting that because the investigator did not “give Mr. Smothers a chance to explain or deny those allegations,” “[t]he decision makers ultimately relied on one-sided information”
• explaining that the same decision-maker is critical because, otherwise, “[d]ifferences in disciplinary decisions may be explained by the fact that the discipline was administered by different supervisors” (quotation omitted)
• “To be similarly situated to the plaintiff, the other employee must share the same supervisor or decision maker.”
• “A failure to conduct what appeared to be a fair investigation of the violation that purportedly prompted adverse action may support an inference of pretext.” (quotations omitted)
• “When comparing different treatment of similarly-situated employees, ‘the comparison 4 need not be based on identical violations of identical work rules; the violations need only be of comparable seriousness.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).