State v. Ubiles

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that if a “failure to investigate [were] to cause a train wreck, [the defendant] would be told under the unremitting glare of hindsight of all it should have done”
• noting that “[o]ther circuits to address this issue have found that improper medical inquiry claims under the ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A) stand apart from general claims of discrimination under § 12112(a
• “[C]omplying with . . . legally binding federal regulation[s] is, by definition, a business necessity.”
• “[C]omplying with ... legally binding federal regulation[s] is, by definition, a business necessity.”
• “[T]he ADA does not countermand the railroad’s unconditional obligation to follow the regulations and its consequent right to do so.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).