Stutts v. Freeman
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
694 F.2d 666 (1983)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Joseph Stutts (plaintiff) was hired by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) (defendant) to work at a steam plant. Stutts later applied to an apprenticeship training program for heavy-equipment operators. The TVA denied Stutts’s application due to his low score on an aptitude test administered during the application process. Stutts had been diagnosed with dyslexia to a degree that rendered him unable to perform well on written tests. After the aptitude test, Stutts was evaluated by doctors and nonwritten tests; the evaluations indicated that he possessed above-average intelligence, coordination, and aptitude for the position of heavy-equipment operator. The TVA was unable to get the results of Stutt’s secondary evaluations and could not provide an oral version of its aptitude test because the oral test could not accurately be compared to the written version. Stutts filed suit against the TVA, including S. David Freeman, the chairman of the TVA’s board of directors (defendant). Stutts argued that the TVA violated the Rehabilitation Act by refusing the application of an otherwise qualified disabled individual. The district court granted summary judgment for the TVA, finding that Stutts failed to show that he had similar qualifications to those of nondisabled employees in the apprenticeship program. Stutts appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.
