Narrative Opinion Summary
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York is affirmed in the case of Esther Bagaloo, who appealed the dismissal of her claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court found that Bagaloo did not qualify as disabled under the ADA, a conclusion supported by her own description of her condition. Additionally, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claim under the New York State Human Rights Law. The appellate court affirms the district court's decision for the reasons articulated in Judge Korman’s opinion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review and Affirmation of Lower Court Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court upheld the district court's decision, agreeing with the reasoning provided in the lower court's opinion.
Reasoning: The appellate court affirms the district court's decision for the reasons articulated in Judge Korman’s opinion.
Definition of Disability under the ADAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the plaintiff did not meet the criteria for being considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act based on her own description of her condition.
Reasoning: The district court found that Bagaloo did not qualify as disabled under the ADA, a conclusion supported by her own description of her condition.
Supplemental Jurisdiction under State Law Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court chose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's state law claim, which was brought under the New York State Human Rights Law.
Reasoning: Additionally, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her claim under the New York State Human Rights Law.