182 F. Supp. 2d 1260 - Morris v. Roche’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Bonner v. City of Prichard
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he legislative history indicates that FECA was intended to compensate employees who suffer work-related injuries and immunize employers from actions in tort for those same injuries similar to private workers’ compensation statutes. A private employer’s compliance with its workers’ compensation obligations does not immunize it from Rehabilitation Act liability. Similarly, FECA’s exclusivity provision must be read as foreclosing an employee who elects to receive FECA benefits from also bringing an action against her employer under the Federal Tort Claims Act, Suits in Admiralty Act, Public Vessels Act, etc. Congress has not amended FECA to state otherwise, nor has it limited Rehabilitation Act claims....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“unambiguously indicates that disparate treatment discrimination cannot, as a matter of law, fit within FECA’s definition of ‘injury’ because such discrimination is an intentional — not accidental— act, is not a disease, and is not damage to or destruction of medical braces, artificial limbs, or other prosthetic devices. Thus, the harm suffered by a victim of disability discrimination is not an injury within the meaning of FECA.”
1 later decision 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.