# James Johnson v. K Mart Corporation

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · December 19, 2001 · 273 F.3d 1035

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494602

## Case

- **Full name:** James JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K MART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** December 19, 2001
- **Citations:** 273 F.3d 1035; 12 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1120; 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 26920; 2001 WL 1480295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Carnes, Barkett, Pollak, Anderson, Tjoflat, Edmondson, Birch, Dubina, Black, Hull, Marcus, Wilson
- **Cited by:** 20 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494602

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that such disparity in disability coverage constitutes unlawful discrimination prohibited by Title I because it imposes a benefits limitation that is contingent on the kind of disability the former employee has
- explaining that the majority in Olmstead “substantially imported] the definition of Title I into Title II”
- finding that ADA prohibits a distinction in benefit payments between mental and physical disabilities

## Opinion text

ORDER ON REHEARING
Dec. 19, 2001.
BY THE COURT:
A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the suggestion of rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby vacated.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9494602. Public record. Not legal advice.