Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 2003–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Miles v. Beardgreen2 sentences2026Harris v. Department of Corrections, 178 A.3d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)) (Secretary of Corrections not indispensable to the disposition of inmate’s ADA claim, as the petition for review “did not allege specific wrongdoing by [the secretary,] nor does [the petitioner] allege the existence of a statewide policy causing his alleged mistreatment”); see also Jones v. Peterman, 743 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (state employees are only officers of the Commonwealth if they perform “statewide policymaking functions and are charged with 2026Harris v. Department of Corrections, 178 A.3d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)) (Secretary of Corrections not indispensable to the disposition of inmate’s ADA claim, as the petition for review “did not allege specific wrongdoing by [the secretary,] nor does [the petitioner] allege the existence of a statewide policy causing his alleged mistreatment”); see also Jones v. Peterman, 743 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (state employees are only officers of the Commonwealth if they perform “statewide policymaking functions and are charged with | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. PA Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2026Harris v. Department of Corrections, 178 A.3d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)) (Secretary of Corrections not indispensable to the disposition of inmate’s ADA claim, as the petition for review “did not allege specific wrongdoing by [the secretary,] nor does [the petitioner] allege the existence of a statewide policy causing his alleged mistreatment”); see also Jones v. Peterman, 743 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (state employees are only officers of the Commonwealth if they perform “statewide policymaking functions and are charged with 2026Harris v. Department of Corrections, 178 A.3d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)) (Secretary of Corrections not indispensable to the disposition of inmate’s ADA claim, as the petition for review “did not allege specific wrongdoing by [the secretary,] nor does [the petitioner] allege the existence of a statewide policy causing his alleged mistreatment”); see also Jones v. Peterman, 743 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (state employees are only officers of the Commonwealth if they perform “statewide policymaking functions and are charged with | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Petermangreen2 sentences2026Harris v. Department of Corrections, 178 A.3d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)) (Secretary of Corrections not indispensable to the disposition of inmate’s ADA claim, as the petition for review “did not allege specific wrongdoing by [the secretary,] nor does [the petitioner] allege the existence of a statewide policy causing his alleged mistreatment”); see also Jones v. Peterman, 743 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (state employees are only officers of the Commonwealth if they perform “statewide policymaking functions and are charged with 2026Harris v. Department of Corrections, 178 A.3d 945, 949 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing Miles v. Beard, 847 A.2d 161, 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004)) (Secretary of Corrections not indispensable to the disposition of inmate’s ADA claim, as the petition for review “did not allege specific wrongdoing by [the secretary,] nor does [the petitioner] allege the existence of a statewide policy causing his alleged mistreatment”); see also Jones v. Peterman, 743 A.2d 537, 538 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (state employees are only officers of the Commonwealth if they perform “statewide policymaking functions and are charged with | 1 | 1 |
Stultz v. Reese Bros., Inc.green2 sentences2023Accord Stultz v. Reese Bros., Inc., 835 A.2d 754, 761 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“To trigger an employer’s duty to participate in the interactive process, the disabled individual must put the employer on notice that he/she has a disability and, based on such notice, the employer must be able to reasonably deduce a request for accommodation has been made.”); Sharnese v. California, 547 Fed.Appx. 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Because he cannot show that any court employee took actions ‘by reason of’ a disability of which they were unaware, the ADA claim was properly dismissed.”). 2023Accord Stultz v. Reese Bros., Inc., 835 A.2d 754, 761 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“To trigger an employer’s duty to participate in the interactive process, the disabled individual must put the employer on notice that he/she has a disability and, based on such notice, the employer must be able to reasonably deduce a request for accommodation has been made.”); Sharnese v. California, 547 Fed.Appx. 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Because he cannot show that any court employee took actions ‘by reason of’ a disability of which they were unaware, the ADA claim was properly dismissed.”). | 1 | 1 |
Nylonda Sharnese v. State of Californiagreen2 sentences2023Accord Stultz v. Reese Bros., Inc., 835 A.2d 754, 761 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“To trigger an employer’s duty to participate in the interactive process, the disabled individual must put the employer on notice that he/she has a disability and, based on such notice, the employer must be able to reasonably deduce a request for accommodation has been made.”); Sharnese v. California, 547 Fed.Appx. 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Because he cannot show that any court employee took actions ‘by reason of’ a disability of which they were unaware, the ADA claim was properly dismissed.”). 2023Accord Stultz v. Reese Bros., Inc., 835 A.2d 754, 761 (Pa.Super. 2003) (“To trigger an employer’s duty to participate in the interactive process, the disabled individual must put the employer on notice that he/she has a disability and, based on such notice, the employer must be able to reasonably deduce a request for accommodation has been made.”); Sharnese v. California, 547 Fed.Appx. 820, 823 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Because he cannot show that any court employee took actions ‘by reason of’ a disability of which they were unaware, the ADA claim was properly dismissed.”). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. PENN. DEPT. OF ENVIRON. PROTEC.green2 sentences2018See Hill v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 545 Pa. 38 , 679 A.2d 773 (1996) (holding that an employment discrimination complaint for money damages! under various statutes, including provisions of .the ADA, falls within 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(l)(v)). 2018See Hill v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 545 Pa. 38 , 679 A.2d 773 (1996) (holding that an employment discrimination complaint for money damages! under various statutes, including provisions of .the ADA, falls within 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(l)(v)). | 1 | 1 |
Kenneth S. Hantman, Inc. v. Office of Unemployment Compensation Tax Servicesgreen2 sentences2017Tax Servs., 928 A.2d 448, 452-53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (emphasis added). 2017Tax Servs., 928 A.2d 448, 452-53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pesce v. Coppinger
green
2 sentences2022Pesce, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 45-47 . 2022Pesce, 355 F. Supp. 3d at 45-47 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Smith v. Aroostook County
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 160-61 .13 The court found that Smith’s ADA claim could be based upon a disparate treatment rationale or based upon the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, and that she would be likely to succeed under either or both of those theories. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp.
green
2 sentences2003The Court explained that "[a]n SSA representation of total disability differs from a purely factual statement in that it often implies a context-related legal conclusion, namely, `I am disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act.'" Id. at 802 , 119 S.Ct. 1597 . 2003The Court explained that "[a]n SSA representation of total disability differs from a purely factual statement in that it often implies a context-related legal conclusion, namely, `I am disabled for purposes of the Social Security Act.'" Id. at 802 , 119 S.Ct. 1597 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.