Legal Opinion
Wiederhold v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
District Court, D. Oregon
Decided August 23, 2012No. 03:11-CV-00998-HUPublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
HUBEL, United States Magistrate Judge:
The plaintiff Tami Wiederhold filed this employment action on August 17, 2011, against her former employer, the defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”). Wiederhold claims that after she developed a physical impairment, Sears refused to accommodate her in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and Oregon’s corresponding Discrimination Against Disabled Persons in Employment Act, ORS § 659A.001 et seq. (the “Oregon Act”). The case is before the court…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Mladen Zivkovic v. Southern California Edison CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Celia SANCHEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STANDARD BRANDS, INC., Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1970
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Gloeckner v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLCDistrict Court, D. Oregon · 2021
- Smallwood v. Delta Airlines, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2021