In Preeson v. Parkview Medical Center, a federal court in Colorado denied Defendant’s motion for summary dismissal of a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  Plaintiff alleged, in relevant part, that her termination from employment constituted discrimination on account of a disability.  Plaintiff suffered from Cyclic Vomiting Syndrome (“CVS”).  As such, she

In Crain v. Roseville Rehabilitation and Health Care, the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act.  In Crain, Plaintiff alleged that her employer discriminated against her under the ADA

In Bethscheider v. Westar Energy, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  Alleged by Plaintiff was that her migraine headaches constituted a disability entitling her to a reasonable accommodation.  The Company terminated Plaintiff for “excessive absenteeism” despite the

In Knight v. Barry Callebaut USA Service Company, Inc., the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied an employer’s motion for summary judgment on claims brought by a terminated employee under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  During the work day, the

The Sixth Circuit recently reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a case arising under the Americans With Disabilities Act.   The Court determined that an issue of fact existed as to whether the ability to lift more than 35 pounds was an essential function of plaintiff’s job as a stock

In Beaton v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority New York City Transit, Docket No. 15 CV 08056 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 2016), the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims under the ADA and local laws.  The case is significant because it addressed an alleged  mental disability.  By way of background, Plaintiff was employed