Justice Prevails

On September 6, 1968, the territory motor lodge granted Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to introduce a Claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of accomplished Procedure on the ground that answering had failed as a matter of law

to show that she was 'disabled' within the meaning of adenosine deaminase. The zone dally determined that, after she takes her medication, the asthma she suffers does non advantageously limit her major life operation of breathing. The dominion Court further held that the EEOC's Interpretative Guidance(Guidelines) which provides that the determination whether an impairment such as answering's asthma substantially limits a major life legal action should be made without regard to mitigating measures, including medication, was an impermissible construction of ADA and its regulation; and, that therefore, it was inapplicable to the present case.

In September 1998, Respondent appealed the order of the dominion Court to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth roundabout (the "Court of Appeals"). On October 31, 1998, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the District Court and remanded the case to it for further proceedings on the thousand that the aforesaid Interpretive Guidance of the EEOC did apply to a heartrending impairment such as Respondent's asthma in its strict allege and that, therefore, she had

For the reasons stated above, the Court should reverse the order of the Court of Appeal and reinstate the District Court's order granting Petitioner's motion to dismiss Respondent's claim for failure to state a cause of action.

Public Employee Retirement Systems of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158 (1989).

Former part of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) Regulation low the Rehabilitation Act, 45 C.F.R. sec. 84.3(j)(2)(ii)(1997).

stated a claim under ADA. This Court and then granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Respondent did not occupy a tenured position with Petitioner. She has not made a claim for wrongful elucidate, only that her discharge was the result of contrariety against her on account of her disability under ADA. If she was not disabled at the time, no action for discrimination under the cited section of ADA will lie. ADA does not guarantee that an individual will obtain or entertain any particular position. The EEOC regulations state that in considering whether a health impairment has substantially limited the major lifetime activity of 'working,' a number of factors are to be taken into account, including

Reno v. Korday, cxv S.Ct. 2021 (1995).

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. secs. 12101-12117 (1997).

Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!