Nolan v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc.

5 Citing cases

  1. KEAR v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMM. OF SEDGWICK CO., KS.

    Case No. 06-1234-JTM (D. Kan. Sep. 18, 2008)

    As such, Kear was not qualified to perform the essential duties of her job with or without accommodation. See Nolan v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 753, 759 (D. Kan. 1996) (holding that where a plaintiff failed to prove that he could have performed the essential functions of a position with the defendant, and his employer made a good faith effort to accommodate the plaintiff, the plaintiff was not considered "qualified" for the purposes of the second element of a prima facie disability discrimination claim). Consequently, the second element of her prima facie case has not been met, and Kear's disability discrimination claim must fail.

  2. Goodwin-Haulmark v. Menninger Clinic, Inc.

    76 F. Supp. 2d 1235 (D. Kan. 1999)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that defendant interfered with plaintiff's right when the employer forced her to choose between resignation and working without leave

    Because the ADA and the KAAD define the term "disability" similarly, plaintiff's claims under the KAAD must also fail. See Nolan v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 753, 757 (Kan. 1996); South v. NMC Homecare, Inc., 943 F. Supp. 1336, 1340 (Kan. 1996).E. FMLA

  3. Gazaway v. Makita U.S.A., Inc.

    11 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (D. Kan. 1998)   Cited 11 times
    Holding the fact that the employer encouraged an employee to seek counseling established only that the employer was sympathetic to the employee's experience, not that the employer regarded the employee as disabled

    Although he opined in an affidavit that his diminished "competitive edge" significantly restricted his ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, this purely conclusory statement provides no basis for the court to conclude that Mr. Gazaway was substantially limited in his ability to work. See Nolan v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 753, 758 (D.Kan. 1996). Significantly, Mr. Gazaway has offered no evidence with respect to the number or types of other sales positions in the geographical area to which he had access that would be as demanding as his position at Makita in terms of required revenues or other standards.

  4. South v. NMC Homecare, Inc.

    943 F. Supp. 1336 (D. Kan. 1996)   Cited 10 times

    White, 45 F.3d at 360-61. Because both the ADA and KAAD define the term "disability" similarly, plaintiff's discrimination claims under the two statutes must meet the identical fate. Nolan v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 917 F. Supp. 753, 757 n. 2 (D.Kan. 1996).A. Disability

  5. MacKey v. IBP, Inc.

    167 F.R.D. 186 (D. Kan. 1996)   Cited 131 times
    Stating that omnibus phrases “often require the answering party to engage in mental gymnastics to determine what information may or may not be remotely responsive”

    4. that a causal connection existed between the protected activity or injury and the termination. SeeRamirez v. IBP, Inc., 77 F.3d 493, 1996 WL 80452, at *5 n. 7 (10th Cir.1996) (TABLE; Text on WESTLAW); Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc., 919 F.Supp. 378, 380 (D.Kan.1996); Nolan v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc., 917 F.Supp. 753, 759 (D.Kan.1996); Robinson v. Wilson Concrete Co., 913 F.Supp. 1476, 1483 (D.Kan.1996); Rodriguez v. IBP, Inc., No. 94-1168-PFK, 1996 WL 42125, at *5 (D.Kan. Jan. 12, 1996); Ramirez v. IBP, Inc., 913 F.Supp. 1421, 1429 (D.Kan.1995); Nguyen v. IBP, Inc., 905 F.Supp. 1471, 1481 (D.Kan.1995); Robertson v. IBP, Inc., No. Civ.A. 94-2047-GTV, 1995 WL 405095, at *1 (D.Kan. June 29, 1995); Velazquez v. IBP, Inc., No. 94-4015-SAC, 1995 WL 408397, at *3 (D.Kan. June 22, 1995); Lawrence v. IBP, Inc., No. Civ.A. 94-2027-EEO, 1995 WL 261144, at *10 (D.Kan. Apr. 21, 1995); Hill v. IBP, Inc., 881 F.Supp. 521, 524 (D.Kan.1995); Chaparro, 873 F.Supp. at 1472; Rosas v. IBP, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 912, 916 (D.Kan.1994); Garcia v. IBP, Inc., No. Civ.A. 93-2338-EEO, 1994 WL 590905, at *4 (D.Kan. Oct. 26, 1994); Hysten v. Hopkins Mfg. Corp., No. 93-2554-KHV, 1994 WL 731545, at *3 (D.Kan. Oct. 18, 1994); Ortega v. IBP, Inc