Stone v. City of Mount Vernon

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the analysis of whether a plaintiff is disabled is identical under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act
• finding that defendant did not demonstrate that a permanent light duty assignment was “unreasonable as a matter of law” when two employees had ten to twenty year assignments to a light duty unit
• noting that, although the “employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential is highly relevant evidence, it is only one of the regulations’ seven illustrative categories of evidence” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
• finding that district court had improperly focused “solely on the title held by a person” rather than “on the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability [holds or] desires”
• reversing summary judgement where the district court gave undue weight to the title of firefighter when determining whether fighting fires was an essential function of the job
• describing prima facie case of discrimination under Rehabilitation Act and ADA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).