Legal Opinion
Allen v. Pacific Bell
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided November 10, 2003No. Nos. 02-55721, 02-56375, 02-56531PublishedCited by 112 opinions
1Per curiam
Clarence Allen appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment on his claims that Pacific Bell discriminated against him under federal and state disability law. Allen v. Pacific Bell, 212 F.Supp.2d 1180 (2002). We affirm the district court’s ruling for the following reasons only.
For Allen to establish a prima facie case under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) that Pacific Bell failed to accommodate his disability, he must first demonstrate that: (1) he is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) he is a qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Carolyn Humphrey v. Memorial Hospitals AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
- Smith v. Midland Brake, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
- Mary Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Vera L. Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Mike Black Rita SilvaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
- Shirley Weigel v. Target Stores, a Division of Dayton Hudson CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by112 opinions
- Rosemary Garity v. Apwu National Labor Org.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Robert Dark v. Curry County Curry County Road Department Dan Crumley, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Curry County RoadmasterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Samper v. PROVIDENCE ST. VINCENT MEDICAL CENTERCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
- Gelfo v. Lockheed Martin CorporationCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Exby-Stolley v. Board of County CommissionersCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2020
107 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.