Simpson v. Ernst & Young’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished; the skill required by the hired party; the duration of the relationship between the parties; the hiring party’s right to assign additional projects; the hired party’s discretion over when and how to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the hiring party’s regular business; the hired party’s employee benefits; and tax treatment of the hired party’s compensation.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. City of Saline · Shah v. Deaconess Hospital

2. “Lilley , like Darden , defines the underlying common denominator of the employer/employee rubric as the employer’s ability to control job performance and employment opportunities of the aggrieved individual as the most important of many elements to be ■ evaluated in resolving the issue after assessing and weighing all of the incidents of the relationship with no one factor being decisive....”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jammal v. Am. Family Ins. Co. · Alfred v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance

3. “For all practical purposes [the court is quoting here from the district court's opinion], he was an employee with the additional detriment of having promised to be liable for the firm's losses. Ernst & Young was free to draft its Partnership Agreement and U.S. Agreement in such a way as to generate the belief in its employees that they enjoyed partnership status and to permit them to represent themselves as partners. However, because these individuals actually had no bona fide ownership interest, no fiduciary relationship, no share in the profits and losses, no significant management control, no meaningful voting rights, no meaningful vote in firm decisions, and no job security, they were not bona fide partners. Therefore Ernst & Young was obligated not to discriminate against them because of their age, sex, race, religion, national origin, or handicap.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood