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.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 25 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 Steven A. Breitkreutz, Orville Hillis v. Cambrex Charles City, Inc., Formerly Known as Salsbury Chemicals Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Steven A. Breitkreutz, Orville Hillis v. Cambrex Charles City, Inc., Formerly Known as Salsbury Chemicals Inc. Anchor | green | “if a restriction is based upon the recommendations of physicians, then it is not based upon myths or stereotypes about the disabled and does not establish a perception of disability.” | 10 |
| 2 | Wenzlaff v. NationsBank | green | “with near unanimity, federal courts have held that pregnancy is not a 'disability' under the ada.” | 7 |
| 3 | Kim Ensley-Gaines v. Marvin Runyon, Postmaster | green | “explicitly alters the analysis to be applied in pregnancy discrimination cases,” | 4 |
| 4 | Mary D. Pollard v. High's of Baltimore, Incorporated | green | “temporary impairments usually do not fall within the ada's definition of 'disability.” | 4 |
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.