DePaoli v. Abbott Laboratories’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 668 · 1998
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp. (1998), Dalton v. Subaru-Isuzu Automotive, Inc. (1998)
41 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 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)
Relies on Gile v. United Airlines, Inc. · Roth v. Lutheran General Hospital · Milton v. Scrivner, Inc. · Byrne v. Board of Education · DeLuca v. Winer Industries, Inc.
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we look to see if the employer actually requires all employees in a particular position to perform the allegedly essential functions, we do not otherwise second-guess the employer's judgment in describing the essential requirements for the job.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n order to define a meaningful class of jobs, we must look to the training, knowledge, skills, and ability required to perform the particular work, as well as the geographic area reasonably available to the plaintiff. Common job groupings within a particular industry would also be relevant, just as they are in the somewhat analogous area of defining relevant markets in antitrust cases.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n employer cannot avoid liability by showing that the employee is still generally capable of doing some economically valuable work in the national economy.”
3 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.