Reeves v. Dairy Queen, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Stevenson v. Felco Industries, Inc. (2009), Allison v. Town of Clyde Park (2000)
2 district · 28 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 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. · Mead v. M.S.B., Inc. · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alton Packaging Corp. · Heiat v. Eastern Montana College
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) ndependent assessment of the risk of substantial harm is evaluation by the employer of the probability and severity of potential injury in the circumstances, taking into account all relevant information regarding the work and medical history of the person with the disability before taking the adverse employment action in question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of a person’s major life activities; (ii) a record of such impairment; or (iii) a condition regarded as such an impairment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiff must allege a prima facie case of discrimination in her complaint. In this context, the plaintiff alleges a prima facie case by asserting that plaintiff is a member of a protected class, and that a male colleague with the same credentials, who performs substantially the same work, receives a higher salary. The employer seeking summary judgment must then come forward with a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the disparity. If the employer comes forward with a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason, the plaintiff must then, in addition to having alleged a prima facie case in the complaint, produce evidence that establishes her prima facie case as well as evidence which raises an inference that the employer’s proffered reason is pretextual. Of course, this does not mean that a plaintiff in a discrimination action always survives summary judgment when the plaintiff calls the employer’s proffered explanation into question. Rather than having to demonstrate with specific facts that the employer’s explanation “is a pretext,” she need only introduce evidence which raises an inference that the employer’s proffered reason is pretextual. To create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext, the plaintiff must not only introduce evidence from which a reasonable person could infer that she is qualified, she must also introduce evidence that casts doubt on the defendant’s contention that there was a legitimate business justification for defendant’s action.”
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.