Alexander v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

826 F.3d 544 (2016)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
A
From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Alexander v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
826 F.3d 544 (2016)

SC

Facts

Carlos Alexander (plaintiff) was an employee for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) (defendant). Alexander was an alcoholic and was fired for being intoxicated on the job. Alexander was told he could reapply in one year after he went through an alcohol treatment program. Alexander completed the program and reapplied but was not rehired. Alexander was given a variety of reasons for why he was not rehired, including that WMATA was concerned about safety risks related to Alexander’s employment. Alexander was not drinking at the time of his applications to be rehired. Alexander brought suit under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, claiming that he was fired and not rehired due to his alcoholism, which he claimed was a disability under the Rehabilitation Act. The Rehabilitation Act incorporated the definitions of disability under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Alexander stated that his alcoholism affected his sleep and daily personal care activities. The district court granted WMATA summary judgment, finding that Alexander did not have a disability because he did not establish that his alcoholism substantially limited major life activities. Alexander appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 804,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Employment Law

Key Terms