Talk:Samuel Bagenstos

Echazabal
I am not a lawyer but I believe the following description of Chevron v. Echazabal, given in the page, is incorrect: "the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs argument that he should be the one to decide if chemicals in the workplace posed too much risk to his health, given that he had hepatitis". I find the case confusing so I'm not going to fix the summary myself, but if someone with better knowledge of disability law could look into it that would be great. Asacarny (talk) 03:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with the comment that the case is confusing, but would consider the summary as incomplete, rather than inaccurate. The Court unanimously held that the chemicals posed a "direct threat," barring recovery for employment discrimination. In doing so, the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the direct threat would need to be to others.XFLQR (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

ARC or Arc
I changed the organization's name in the first external source to jibe with 1992 changes mentioned on [https://thearc.org/about-us/history/?_ga=2.115820038.16265015.1703567009-270967848.1703567009&_gl=1*acw84w*_ga*MjcwOTY3ODQ4LjE3MDM1NjcwMDk.*_ga_TTHG7VXBGP*MTcwMzU2NzAwOC4xLjEuMTcwMzU2NzAzNy4wLjAuMA.. The Arc] website. XFLQR (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)