42 U.S.C. § 12208
Transvestites
For the purposes of this chapter, the term “disabled” or “disability” shall not apply to an individual solely because that individual is a transvestite.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1992–2017 · leading case: Mary Jo C. v. New York State & Local Ret. Sys. et ano., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013).
Mary Jo C. v. New York State & Local Ret. Sys. et ano., 707 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2013). “, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12208 , 12210 (explicitly excluding certain individuals from the definition of “qualified individual with a disability”); id.”
Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, 129 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997). “42 U.S.C. §§ 12208 , 12211(b) (1994). *1087 Homosexuality and bisexuality are also identified as being neither impairments nor disabilities.”
Elzeneiny v. Dist. of Columbia, 195 F. Supp. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2016). “See 42 U.S.C § 12208(a) (“No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,…”
Maioriello v. New York State Off. for People with Developmental Disabilities, 272 F. Supp. 3d 307 (N.D.N.Y. 2017). “he foregoing allegations, the Amended Complaint sets forth the following four causes of action: (1) a claim that Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for advocating on behalf of disabled patients, in violation of Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”); (2) a…”
Dugger v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ., 232 F. Supp. 3d 938 (E.D. Tex. 2017). “In so doing, the courts have looked to 29 U.S.C. § 794 (d), which provides that the standards for finding employment discrimination under section 504 are the same as those under title I of the ADA, which contains a specific prohibition against retaliation.”
Jones v. Quintana, 658 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2009). “However, construing the Amended Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is reasonable to infer that Plaintiff intended to assert a claim for retaliation in violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12208 (a), based upon allegations that she was terminated approximately…”
Kaufman v. Carter, 952 F. Supp. 520 (W.D. Mich. 1996). “” 42 U.S.C. § 12208 . Attempting to demonstrate that “any,” as used in “any department,” in fact means “any” is like attempting to prove a negative.”
Henzel v. Delaware Otsego Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 271 (N.D.N.Y. 2003). “” 42 U.S.C. § 12208 (a). In order to establish a prima facie case, Henzel must demonstrate that: “(1) he engaged in an activity protected by the ADA; (2) the employer was aware of this activity; (3) the employer took adverse employment action against him; and, (4) a causal…”
Mason v. Wyeth, Inc., 183 F. App'x 353 (4th Cir. 2006). “See 42 U.S.C.A. § 12208 (providing that “[n]o person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an…”
Jane Doe v. Boeing Co., 823 P.2d 1159 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). “, specific exemptions from the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A §§ 12208, 12211. It is not for us to make that determination.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps, 303 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2002). “§ 2000e-3, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12208 (b), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.”
Michigan Flyer, LLC v. Wayne Cnty. Airport Auth., 162 F. Supp. 3d 584 (E.D. Mich. 2016). “” 42 U.S.C. § 12208 (a). The Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that as corporate entities, the plaintiffs did not qualify as “individuals” subject to the protections of section 12203.”
— 42 U.S.C. § 12208(a) — 1 case
Elzeneiny v. Dist. of Columbia, 195 F. Supp. 3d 207 (D.D.C. 2016). “See 42 U.S.C § 12208(a) (“No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.