Willis v. Conopco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
108 F.3d 282 · 1997
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 172 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Taylor v. Phoenixville School District (1999), Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc. (1997)
64 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (§ 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Beck v. University of Wisconsin Board of Regents · Borkowski v. Valley Central School District · Barth v. Gelb
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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An employer commits unlawful discrimination under the ADA if the employer does “not mak[e] reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless [the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of [the employer].” 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(5)(A). The ADA’s regulations state that: “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (o)(3). (emphasis added). The EEOC’s interpretive guidelines also state that: “Once a qualified individual with a disability has requested provision of a reasonable accommodation, the employer must make a reasonable effort to determine the appropriate accommodation. The appropriate reasonable accommodation is best determined through a flexible, interactive process that involves both the employer and the [employee] with a disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630 , App. § 1630.9. (emphasis added). Other circuits have considered these regulations and interpretive guidelines and have written differing interpretations of them. Some circuits have concluded that b”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The ADA, as far as we are aware, is not intended to punish employers for behaving callously if, in fact, no accommodation for the employee's disability could reasonably have been made.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]here a plaintiff cannot demonstrate `reasonable accommodation,' the employer's lack of investigation into reasonable accommodation is unimportant.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.