Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 88 P.3d 305 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 88 P.3d 305 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2004 · …e do not follow the federal approach to pretext claims under oregon law ⚠ not in text
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Williams v. FREIGHTLINER, LLC (orctapp, 2004-11-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Williams v. FREIGHTLINER, LLC (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
e do not follow the federal approach to pretext claims under oregon law
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Washburn v. Columbia Forest Products, Inc. (2×)
Or. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
We note that, to succeed under such a theory, “a person must be significantly restricted in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes * * *.” OAR 839-006-0205(6)(b); see also Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 192 Or App 261, 272-74 , 84 P3d 1105 , adh’d to as modified on recons, 193 Or App 59 , 88 P3d 305 , rev den, 337 Or 182 (2004) (summary judgment was proper where record showed no issue of fact about whether the plaintiff was significantly restricted in the ability to work in a broad class of jobs).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Treva LANSFORD
v.
GEORGETOWN MANOR, INC., an Oregon corporation, dba Ethan Allen
0104-03797; A117930.
Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Apr 14, 2004.
88 P.3d 305
Richard C. Busse and Busse & Hunt for appellant’s petition., Jeffrey P Chicoine and Newcomb, Sabin, Schwartz & Landsverk, LLP, for respondent’s petition and response.
Armstrong, Brewer, Landau.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 76%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Oregon (2)
ARMSTRONG, J.

Plaintiff and defendant both petition for reconsideration of our decision in Lansford v. Georgetown Manor, Inc., 192 Or App 261, 84 P3d 1105 (2004). We deny defendant’s petition without further discussion. We grant plaintiffs petition and modify footnote one to read as follows:

“The summary judgment record does not establish that there is a factual issue about whether plaintiff had a substantial limitation on her ability to sleep or whether defendant perceived plaintiff as having such a limitation. We therefore reject plaintiffs assertions that she was a qualified individual with a disability or was regarded to be such an individual because of an actual or perceived limitation on her ability to sleep.”

Reconsideration allowed; former opinion modified and adhered to as modified.