Legal Opinion · Concurrence

William Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided September 24, 2013No. 11-17947Published

1ConcurrenceBerzon, Circuit Judge

I concur in Part II and Part III of the majority opinion, and also, reluctantly, in Part I.

Part I holds Castle not an employee under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(4), 12112(a). The sweep of Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir.1993), and Coupar v. Department of Labor, 105 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir.1997), compels that conclusion. But the notion that prisoners who work for covered employers can never be “employees” for purposes of federal employee-protective statutes undermines those statutes as applied to employees generally and misconstrues the reach…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Tennessee v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Williams v. MeeseCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
  3. Hale v. ArizonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
  4. Philip Williamson Itzik Riefronda Kirlin Thomas Painter,plaintiffs-Appellants v. General Dynamics Corporation,opinionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
  5. Shaver v. Independent Stave CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2003

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API