William Robert Kelly v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that a claim of intentional infliction of emotion distress requires more than allegations of employment discrimination
• concluding that the defendant was not entitled to summary judgment on failure to accommodate claim because a factfinder could conclude that the plaintiff was qualified for a vacant position
• noting that absences due to disability “do not in and of themselves render [an employee] unqualified for [her] position”
• noting that failure- to-accommodate claims “are analyzed pursuant to the direct test” from Kleiber rather than the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting approach
• explaining that “ADA discrimination claims are analyzed under two different rubrics, depending on whether the plaintiff relies on ‘direct’ or ‘indirect’ evidence of discrimination”
• noting that “a request as generic as ‘I want to keep working for you—do you have any suggestions?’” could qualify as a request for an accommodation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).