Skip to main content
· 6/6/1986

Wimbley v. Bolger

Citations

  • 642 F. Supp. 481
  • 40 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1855
  • 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24587
  • 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 36,616

How courts have described this case

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

  • An employee who “does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise”
  • “If the [Postal Service] is to meet its statutory mandate to provide efficient mail service, it must have employees who can be counted on to come to work on a regular basis.”
  • interpreting analogous Rehabilitation Act; plaintiff was terminated for absenteeism
  • regular attendance is an essential function of a job

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: McRAE

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.