Need pdf viewer for iPad?
Visit iTunes for:
iAnnotate PDF

Garland's Digest
on employment discrimination law
online since 1997
 

 

Disclaimer: The case on which this summary is based may no longer be current law. Also, if the case was decided on summary judgment, the court recited the "facts" in the light most favorable to the non-movant, which may not be the true facts.

-------------------------

Kees v. Wallenstein, 161 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. November 25, 1998)

Keywords: ADA (qualified individuals)

Introduction/Facts: Four correctional officers who have impairments which prevent them from having direct contact with inmates sued the County and various officials under the ADA after they were terminated. The district court granted summary judgment on behalf of the defendants. The Ninth Circuit affirms.

Law:

1. Direct inmate contact is an essential function of a correctional officer at King County. Since no reasonable accommodation would have allowed the plaintiffs to have direct contact, they failed to show that they were qualified individuals.
2. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's grant of summary judgment.
3. Click here to see actual case.