 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
AMICUS BRIEF
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EMPLOYMENT COURT UNITED STATES MARTIN DOT ADA MOTION DISABILITY RIGHTS PLAINTIFF ADMINISTRATORS COMPLAINT SUIT SOUTH CAROLINA FACTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISCHARGE DISTRICT COURT REINSTATE REGULATIONS DEFENDANT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PUBLIC ENTITIES VIOLATION REHABILITATION ACT AUTHORITY LIMITATIONS PUBLIC ENTITY LEGISLATIVE HISTORY |
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Abner N. Martin, Jr. )
Plaintiff, ) Case No. 3:97-0740-19BD
v. )
South Carolina Department of )
Transportation, )
Defendant )
UNITED STATES' AMICUS MEMORANDUM
IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I. Nature of the Case
Martin brought this suit alleging that Defendant South
Carolina Department of Transportation ("DOT") discriminated
against him on the basis of disability first when it discharged
him and again when it refused to reinstate him, in violation of
the ADA.
II. Facts and Procedural History
Plaintiff alleges that after many years of employment as an
engineer with DOT, DOT fired him because of his status as an
alcoholic rather than an inability to perform the essential
functions of his job, with or without reasonable accommodation.
Plaintiff also alleges that DOT engaged in a campaign to mislead
01-07288 him into sleeping on his rights until the 300-day filing limit
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
