Warshaw v. Concentra Health Services

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff’s admission that his ADHD diagnosis did not affect any “day-to-day activities” provided “no evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder could determine that plaintiff is substantially limited…”
• denying summary judgment on employee's negligence claim against drug testing company
• “Defendants correctly respond that . . . mere knowledge of plaintiff’s [impairment] is insufficient to show that plaintiff was regarded as disabled.”
• “As for [plaintiff’s] remaining difficulties–in multitasking, maintaining attention and focus, and pacing his work–although plaintiff is limited to some degree in these areas, there is no indication that these limitations are substantial or severe.”
• “As a general matter, a fact-finder could reasonably conclude that adverse actions suffered by an employee shortly after an .employer learns of the disability are, in fact, based on the employers belief that the employee is limited in a major life activity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).