142 F. Supp. 2d 1271 - Morrow v. Putnam’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 6 district ·

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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(4) Employer (A) In general The term “employer”— (i) means any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year; (ii) includes— (I) any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer; and (II) any successor in interest of an employer; (in) includes any “public agency”, as defined in section 203(x) of this title; and (iv) includes the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress. (B) Public agency For purposes of subparagraph (A)(iii), a public agency shall be considered to be a person engaged in commerce or in an industry or activity affecting commerce.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Modica v. Taylor · 895 F. Supp. 2d 1003 - Bonzani v. Shinseki

2. “The definition of “employer” under the FMLA is very similar to the definition of “employer” under the FLSA. The FLSA includes within the definition of “employer” “any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee and includes a public agency, but does not include any labor organization (other than when acting as an employer) or anyone acting in the capacity of officer or agent of such labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d). Accordingly, several courts have concluded that the term “employer” should be interpreted the same under both statutes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 895 F. Supp. 2d 1003 - Bonzani v. Shinseki

3. “As the Morrow court recognized, [wjhile this statute becomes recursive when applied to supervisory personnel, because the definition of employer refers back to the word employer itself, there is no reason to assume that the term “employer” in subparagraph 4(A)(ii) means anything other than what Congress defined it to mean in the various definitions of paragraph 4(A).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Modica v. Taylor