stating that "[b]ecause the ‘remedies, procedures and rights available under the Rehabilitation Act are the same that are afforded under Title VII,’ a plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act may ‘rely on ... the burden-shifting method borrowed from Title VII cases and originally established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green...'"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "[b]ecause the ‘remedies, procedures and rights available under the Rehabilitation Act are the same that are afforded under Title VII,’ a plaintiff suing under the Rehabilitation Act may ‘rely on ... the burden-shifting method borrowed from Title VII cases and originally established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green...'"
- recognizing that courts need not and indeed should not expend limited judicial resources in researching, refining, and otherwise fleshing out arguments that the parties themselves do not adequately support
- explaining that a court “is not equipped to act as auxiliary lawyer for a party,” particularly a represented party
- providing that the “court has no duty to research and construct legal arguments available to a party, especially when he is represented by counsel.” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CUDAHY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Athough I certainly agree that Mr. Tyler’s rather elliptical equitable tolling argument is a clear loser, it is not so deficient as to waive the point. If the miscitation of a case or two were a waiver, our work would be greatly simplified, but this, unfortunately, stretches the Rules beyond their intended purpose.