No. 19-995
Michael J. Murray v. Mayo Clinic, et al.
Tags: americans-with-disabilities-act causation causation-standard congressional-intent disability-discrimination discrimination motivating-factor statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
Arbitration SocialSecurity ERISA Securities EmploymentDiscrimina
Arbitration SocialSecurity ERISA Securities EmploymentDiscrimina
Latest Conference:
2020-04-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is the 'motivating factor' standard most consistent with the plain language and purposes of the ADA, and Congressional intent, and therefore the appropriate standard to be applied under the ADA?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) forbids discrimination “on the basis of” disability, but does not specifically set forth the standard to be applied in determining causation. Is the “motivating factor” standard most consistent with the plain language and purposes of the statute, and Congressional intent, and therefore the appropriate standard to be applied under the ADA?
Docket Entries
2020-04-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-04-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020.
2020-04-01
Reply of petitioner Michael J. Murray filed.
2020-03-25
Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until April 8, 2020, granted.
2020-03-23
Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from March 25, 2020 to April 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-03-10
Brief of respondents Mayo Clinic, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-02-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 11, 2020)
Attorneys
Mayo Clinic, et al.
Andrew Martin Jacobs — Snell & Wilmer LLP, Respondent
Andrew Martin Jacobs — Snell & Wilmer LLP, Respondent
Michael J. Murray
Kathi M. Sandweiss — Jaburg & Wilk, P.C., Petitioner
Kathi M. Sandweiss — Jaburg & Wilk, P.C., Petitioner