Legal Opinion
Cargill v. Harvard University
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Decided March 8, 2004No. 01-P-917PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The central contested question in this appeal requires consideration of the legal standards and evidentiary criteria for determining the “essential functions” of a job as that term is *586used in G. L. c. 151B, § 4(16), which prohibits discrimination against qualified handicapped persons.1 To establish a violation of G. L. c. 151B, § 4(16), proof is required that (1) the plaintiff is handicapped within the meaning of the statute; (2) the plaintiff is a “qualified handicapped person” (meaning that, notwithstanding the handicap, the plaintiff can perform the essential functions of the job, either…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. ArlineSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- US Airways, Inc. v. BarnettSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Augat, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
- Charland v. Muzi Motors, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1994
- Green v. Wyman-Gordon Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1996
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Sensing v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLCCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2009
- Godfrey v. Globe Newspaper Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2010
- Smith v. Bell AtlanticMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2005
- McLaughlin v. City of LowellMassachusetts Appeals Court · 2013
- Mammone v. President & Fellows of Harvard CollegeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2006
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.