Harris v. Potter

Eleventh Circuit

Harris v. Potter

158 F. App'x 163

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2005

DocketNo. 05-10179; D.C. Docket No. 03-00640 CV-AR-S

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 F. App'x 163 (Harris v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harris v. Potter, 158 F. App'x 163 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we affirm. We affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs disability claim, because plaintiff failed to prove that he could perform the essential functions of the job, or that his health problems could be reasonably accommodated. See Jackson v. Veterans Administration, 22 F.3d 277 (11th Cir. 1994). We also affirm with respect to plaintiffs age claim; there is little or no evidence of age discrimination and plaintiffs alleged comparator is not similarly situated. Finally, we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs retaliation claim; plaintiff has failed to prove either causation or pretext to overcome the defendant’s legitimate business reason.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we affirm. We affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs disability claim, because plaintiff failed to prove that he could perform the essential functions of the job, or that his health problems could be reasonably accommodated. See Jackson v. Veterans Administration, 22 F.3d 277 (11th Cir. 1994). We also affirm with respect to plaintiffs age claim; there is little or no evidence of age discrimination and plaintiffs alleged comparator is not similarly situated. Finally, we affirm the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs retaliation claim; plaintiff has failed to prove either causation or pretext to overcome the defendant’s legitimate business reason.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 F. App'x 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-potter-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack