Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
- Rechtsrecherche mit Zugriff auf über 1 Million Quellen
- Dokumentenautomatisierung
- Mandatsverwaltung
- Gehostet in der EU und der Schweiz
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
Der KI-Arbeitsbereich für Juristen
14 Tage kostenlos testen (10 Fragen/Tag während der Testphase)
03-1814•Robert J. Riccio v. Salisbury Police Department
03-1814Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit13.07.2004
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1814
ROBERT J. RICCIO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SALISBURY POLICE DEPARTMENT; THE CITY OF
SALISBURY; ALAN WEBSTER, Salisbury Police
Department,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
SANDY WILLEY, Administrative Commander
Salisbury Police Department,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
01-1888-CCB)
Submitted: June 25, 2004 Decided: July 13, 2004
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Marshall, SCHLACHMAN, BELSKY & WEINER, P.A., Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant. John F. Breads, Jr., Columbia, Maryland,
for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Robert J. Riccio appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants in Riccio’s action
alleging wrongful termination in violation of Title I of the
Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 -
12213 (2000). To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory
firing under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that: (1) he has a
disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the job in question;
and (3) he was discharged because of his disability. Baird v.
Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 467-70 (4th Cir. 1999). We agree with the
district court that Riccio failed to establish that he was
“otherwise qualified” for the position from which he was
terminated. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (defining “qualified
individual with a disability”); Myers v. Hose, 50 F.3d 278, 281-82
(4th Cir. 1995) (applying two-prong analysis for determining
whether a person is “an otherwise qualified individual”).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.