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.
3 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 24 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Una Aline Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Company.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Una Aline Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Company Anchor | green | “the employer is not required to speculate as to the extent of the employee's disability or the employee's need or desire for an accommodation.” | 17 |
| 2 | Leeds v. Postmaster Gen U.S. | green | “use the magic words 'accommodation' or even 'disability.” | 4 |
| 3 | Brown v. BKW Drywall Supply, Inc. | green | “knowing that an employee has health problems . . . is not the same as knowing that the employee suffers from a disability.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.