Una Aline Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Company

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that an employee who is unable to “meet the attendance requirements of the job at issue cannot be considered a ‘qualified’ individual protected by the ADA.”
• pointing out that the employer is not required to speculate as to the extent of the employee’s desire or need for an accommodation
• \[T]here is now considerable doubt as to whether a claim of age discrimination may exist under a disparate-impact theory\ (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[TJhere is now considerable doubt as to whether a claim of age discrimination may exist under a disparate-impact theory” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “An employee who cannot meet the attendance requirements of the job at issue cannot be considered a ‘qualified’ individual protected by the ADA.”
• “Reasonable accommodation does not require the employer to wait indefinitely for an employee’s medical condition to be corrected”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).