Case law

CHISHOLM v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF NORTH CAROLINA CORP.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 12, 2023

The Order nevertheless granted Defendant’s request to dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim, due to the Complaint’s lack of factual allegations indicating that Plaintiff “is a ‘qualified individual … at 9-10 (concluding that Complaint established Plaintiff’s 11 ineligibility for FMLA protections)).

HAYES v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 3, 2023

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 9-24.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

ROBINSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 19, 2025

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 21-44.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

CRUMPLER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2026

The Supplemental Security Income Progtam (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … Similarly, in the present case, the AL] clearly and repeatedly relied on a lack of objective evidence to find that Plaintiff was not disabled.

RICHARDSON v. CITY OF DURHAM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 30, 2020

Surveillance footage from the gas station clearly demonstrated otherwise. (Id. ¶¶ 43, 61.) … Defendants argue that the federal right at issue here -– the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure – qualifies in this case. It does not.

McKissick v. Durham City Board of Education

176 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 4, 1959

exercise their administrative remedies until after the opening of school; that on or about the 23rd day of August, 1957, the plaintiffs petitioned the Durham City Board of Education for reassignment to a school they were qualified … In the pending case, however, that course was not taken, although it was clearly outlined in our two prior decisions, and the decision of the District Court in dismissing the ease was therefore correct."

MCDONALD v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 17, 2024

Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has established that his claims are typical of the claims of the class he seeks to represent in accordance with Rule 23(a)(3). D. … They have clearly demonstrated that they have dedicated resources and work to identify potential claims and represent the class.

ENGLISH v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 26, 2023

“These regulations establish a ‘sequential evaluation process’ to determine whether a claimant is disabled.” Id. … Quite clearly, our precedents do not so hold.

ADAMS v. FIRST HORIZON BANK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 9, 2021

To establish that fraudulent joinder has occurred, “Defendants must demonstrate either that there is ‘no possibility’ that [the plaintiff] would be able to establish a cause of action … Defendant Long is a non-outsider to the contract, and therefore has certain immunities with respect to interference with the contract. See, e.g., Benjamin v. Sparks, 173 F.

JOYCE v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2024

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … “RFC is to be determined by the AL] only after that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.

PEGRAM v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 2024

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSD, established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 ef seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.

LANE v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2024

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 ef seg., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.

Hall v. Tyco International Ltd.

223 F.R.D. 219 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 27, 2004

In the present case, Plaintiff has failed to allege “facts that together establish a strong inference of scienter.” … Plaintiff contends that he has now filed an EEOC charge and that he meets the narrow exception to qualify for equitable tolling. {See Pl.’s Br. Supp. Resp. Tyco Elecs.’ Mot. Dismiss at 9.)

Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

495 F. Supp. 619 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 23, 1980

Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 , 84 S.Ct. 909 , 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964), does not establish a contrary rule. … Instead, they hired persons to travel to Pilot terminals and establish picket lines.

ENGLISH v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 22, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 12-28.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established grounds for relief.

CASEY v. BRENNAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 29, 2021

Although it is not clearly stated, this court finds Plaintiff was employed by the United States Postal Service. … The ADA provides a cause of action to a qualified individual with a disability whose employer fails to make a reasonable accommodation to a known physical or mental limitation

KADEL v. FOLWELL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 5, 2022

It is a well- established principle that an appeal divests a trial court of jurisdiction over “those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.” Griggs v. … Therefore, as the gatekeeper to Martell’s health services, The Health Plan qualifies as a “health program” that Congress intended to rid of discrimination. Fain, 545 F.

BYRD v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 2023

Id. at 179.2 Step four then requires the AL] to assess whether, based on that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Based on the above, the position of food service worker clearly exceeds the social limitations included in the RFC, and the AL] did not include it as a representative occupation at step five. (Ir. at 32.)

United States v. Drake

310 F. Supp. 3d 607 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 18, 2018

While this court accepts that there may ordinarily be some discussions about target status *624 among law enforcement and prosecutors, the email clearly communicates the Government's firm opinion as to wrongdoing by Drake … Nevertheless, "[a]n agency of the government must scrupulously observe rules, regulations, or procedures which it has established." United States v. Heffner , 420 F.2d 809 , 811 (4th Cir. 1969).

Rhône-Poulenc Agro S.A. v. Monsanto Co.

73 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 1, 1999

A formal agreement is not essential to establish a joint venture. … In other words, “[a] previous course of dealing may give meaning to or qualify an agreement. The prior course of dealing between the parties may be considered in determining the terms of an oral contract.”