Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Staten Island Savings Bank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

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

1. “[W]e are persuaded, when reading the language of the statute in light of the long-term history of disability plans, that Title I of the ADA does not require disability benefit plans to provide equal benefits for mental and physical disabilities. The ADA, unclear on its face, does not specifically condemn the historic and nearly universal practice inherent in the insurance industry of providing different benefits for different disabilities. The interpretation of Title I urged upon us * * * would require far-reaching changes in the way the insurance industry does business. Of course Congress could require those modifications to be made, but we are reluctant to infer such a mandate for radical change absent a clearer legislative command.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Soshinsky v. First Unum Life Insurance · Kolton v. County of Anoka

2. “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 438 F. Supp. 2d 131 - Lauria v. Donahue · Johnson v. K Mart Corp.

3. “Upon a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint “only if ‘it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.’ ”... Furthermore, “the court must accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.”... However, the court need not credit con-clusory statements unsupported by assertions of facts or legal conclusions and characterizations presented as factual allegations. ... Nevertheless, “[i]n assessing the legal sufficiency of a claim [under 12(b)(6) ], the court may consider those facts alleged in the complaint, documents attached as an exhibit thereto or incorporated by reference ... and documents that are integral to plaintiffs claims, even if not explicitly incorporated by reference.” Moreover, pleadings submitted by pro se litigants “should be ‘construed liberally,’ ” and a complaint “should not be dismissed unless ‘it is clear that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations.’ ”... A “dismissal on the pleadings is never warranted unless the plaintiffs allegations are doomed to fail under any available legal theory.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 488 F. Supp. 2d 172 - Jennis v. Rood