King v. Preferred Technical Group’s Empirical Analysis
166 F.3d 887 · 1999
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 236 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Conoshenti v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co. (2004), Stone v. City of Indianapolis Public Utilities Division (2002)
69 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 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. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (§ 104 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
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 236 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Interference with rights (1) Exercise of rights It shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this subchapter. (2) Discrimination It shall be unlawful for any employer to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any individual for opposing any practice made unlawful by this subchapter.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Among the substantive rights granted by the FMLA to eligible employees are the right to “12 workweeks of leave during any 12-month period ... [bjecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee,” 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (a)(1), and the right following leave “to be restored by the employer to the position of employment held by the employee when the leave commenced” or to an equivalent position, 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (a)(1). To preserve the availability of these rights, and to enforce them, the FMLA creates two types of claims: interference claims, in which an employee asserts that his employer denied or otherwise interfered with his substantive rights under the Act, see 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1), and retaliation claims, in which an employee asserts that his employer discriminated against him because he engaged in activity protected by the Act, see 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (a)(1) & (2)....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plaintiff must proffer significantly probative admissible evidence showing that the employer's articulated reason for the discharge was a pretext for discrimination.”
2 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.