Winsley v. Cook County

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “no one has a right to 16 drive; driving on public highways is a privilege subject to revocation for a number of reasons”
• noting that “vague assertions” by a plaintiff regarding the more favorable treatment of other employees do not suffice to meet the plaintiff’s burden of proof on summary judgment in the context of a Title VII discrimination claim
• noting that “vague assertions” by a plaintiff regarding the more favorable treatment of other employees do not suffice to meet the plaintiff’s burden of proof on summary judgment in the context of a Title VII discrimination claim
• rejecting Title VII claim where plaintiff's alleged comparator chose to quit before completing a required analysis to determine whether she could perform her essential job functions
• finding plaintiff’s “bare assertions” that she was discriminated against because of her race “are not sufficient to establish a link between [her] race and her treatment”
• “Although we hold that driving is not itself a major life activity, the inability to drive nevertheless could create a disability if it caused an impairment of a major life activity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).