Suzanne Benoit v. Andrew Jenkins, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
Suzanne Benoit v. Andrew Jenkins, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“a handicapped employee cannot dictate the measure of his employer's duty to accommodate . . . even if , too, might have been reasonable”
28 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Baxter v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (wisctapp, 1991-10-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Baxter v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wis. Ct. App. · 1991 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
a handicapped employee cannot dictate the measure of his employer's duty to accommodate . . . even if , too, might have been reasonable
discussed Cited "see" Colon-Fontanez v. Municipality of San Juan
1st Cir. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Matzo v. Postmaster Gen., 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (D.D.C.1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988) (holding that a secretary’s poor attendance record rendered her unqualified for her position, even though her skills, experience, and education were “unexceptionable” and coupled with “uniformly favorable performance appraisals”).
discussed Cited "see" Mary M. Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Incorporated of California, T/a Kee Business College Campus National Education Centers, Incorporated
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Matzo v. Postmaster Gen., 685 F.Supp. 260, 263 (D.D.C.1987) (holding that a legal secretary’s poor attendance rendered her unqualified for her job, even though she possessed fine secretarial skills), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988). *214 Furthermore, Kee’s extensive accommodations of Tyndall's lupus .condition did not improve her attendance level.
cited Cited "see" Gallagher v. Catto
D.D.C. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Matzo v. Postmaster General, 685 F.Supp. 260, 262 (D.D.C.1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sedor v. Frank
D. Conn. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Joyner by Lowry v. Dumpson, 712 F.2d 770, 774 (2d Cir.1983); Doe v. New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761 , 774 (2d Cir.1981); see also Matzo v. Postmaster General, 685 F.Supp. 260, 262-63 (D.D.C.1987), aff'd, 861 F.2d 1290 (D.C.Cir.1988).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Suzanne Benoit
v.
Andrew Jenkins
88-7044.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Nov 10, 1988.
861 F.2d 1290
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 72%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Wisconsin (1)

861 F.2d 1290

274 U.S.App.D.C. 95

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Suzanne BENOIT, Appellant,
v.
Andrew JENKINS.

No. 88-7044.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1988.

Before RUTH B. GINSBURG, SILBERMAN and D.H. GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and was briefed and argued by counsel. The court has determined that decision of the appeal occasions no need for a published opinion. See D.C.Cir.R. 14(c).

2

In its opinion the district court stated that Suzanne Benoit "was not reasonably available to DCPS during December 1983 and January 1984." Plaintiff has suggested that this statement conflicts with the hearing officer's finding that "Suzanne was at home from the end of December through the 13th of January." As we read the district court's statement, the court's conclusion that Suzanne "was not reasonably available" to DCPS is compatible with the hearing officer's ultimate determination that Suzanne "was unavailable to DCPS personnel for a significant portion of the 60 day timeline required by Mills...."

3

Accordingly, we cannot gainsay the district court's dispositive ruling: To qualify for reimbursement, "the parent must have made the child reasonably available for evaluation by the public school system"; "[t]he parent here did not do so and thus relief must be denied." Therefore, based on the above-quoted reasons stated in the district court's January 5, 1988 Memorandum, it is

4

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment from which this appeal has been taken be affirmed.

5

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.R. 15(b)(2).