Tobin v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the continuing violation doctrine does not rescue plaintiff’s case even though he made repeated requests for accommodation because employer’s initial rejection started the statutory clock
• holding that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to plaintiff’s time-barred claim where the challenged conduct is a “discrete discriminatory act that . . . does not require repeated conduct to establish an actionable claim.”
• explaining that if a plaintiffs “new [accommodation] request results in a denial, the time period begins to run anew”
• explaining that “a successful plaintiffs right to a particular remedy under federal law does not trump his right to a more advantageous remedy under state law”
• noting that an accommodation request must be sufficiently direct and specific to provide notice to the employer
• explaining that “a successful plaintiff’s right to a particular remedy under federal law does not trump his right to a more advantageous remedy under state law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).