Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 federal appellate · 4 district · 20 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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “' "through cynical gamesmanship, achieving success on one position, then arguing the opposing to suit an exigency of the moment.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litigation · Saults v. First Tennessee Bank (In re Saults)

2. “The point here is a simple one: When employees (and/or their physicians) represent that they are ‘totally disabled,’ ‘wholly unable to work,’ or some other variant to the same effect, employers and factfin-ders are entitled to take them at then-word; and, such representations are relevant evidence of the extent of a plaintiffs disability, upon which an employer may rely in attempting to establish that an ADA plaintiff is not a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’ At the same time, because the SSA’s definition of disability — as well as those of most disability insurance plans — differs materially from the ADA’s definition of a ‘qualified individual with a disability,’ these representations are not conclusive as to the ADA issue. When a defendant in an ADA action relies on such representations as the basis for contending that a plaintiff is not a ‘qualified individual,’ the plaintiff is free to come forward with additional evidence that shows she could perform the essential duties of a desired position with or without reasonable accommodation notwithstanding the fact that she might have been deemed disabled under some other statutory or contractual framework .... As a general matter ... absent some such affirmative showing ... the employer will be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 467-68 (footnote omitted).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dawson v. Qube Corp. · 168 F. Supp. 3d 971 - Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission

3. ““In determining precisely what the plaintiff ‘admitted’ in the application, one must consider the context in which the statements were made. Portions of the [SSDI] application and other forms require the applicant merely to check off boxes without comment, or require the applicant to fill in blanks with little room given for elaboration. In short, the employee may not have a fair opportunity to accurately explain the details of the employee’s medical condition and his ability or inability to work for purposes of [disability discrimination laws].” Griffith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 135 F.3d 376 , 382 (6th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1144 , 119 S.Ct. 2018 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1030 (1999).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kiely v. Heartland Rehabilitation Services, Inc. · 420 F. Supp. 2d 773 - Turner v. Sullivan University Systems, Inc.