Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
A typist who suffered from chronic severe allergic rhinitis and sinusitis claimed she was fired in violation of federal disability law. The employee said she was continuously exposed to secondhand smoke in the office, which aggravated her condition and routinely caused her breathing difficulties. The employee was fired after asking for an accommodation for her respiratory condition. The appeals court said that the employee should be given a chance to prove that she was disabled under the law because her condition substantially limited her ability to (1) breathe or (2) to work. If the employee was disabled based on her limited ability to work, the court said that the employee should be given an opportunity to show that she was substantially limited in her ability to find work as a typist generally. As a result, the court sent the case back to the lower court.