Fedro v. Reno’s Empirical Analysis
21 F.3d 1391 · 1994
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp. (1996), Gile v. United Airlines, Inc. (1996)
21 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 5 U.S.C. § 7702 · 5 U.S.C. § 8337 · 5 U.S.C. § 8451
Relies on Udall v. Tallman · Hamling v. United States · Southeastern Community College v. Davis · Cities of Charlottesville v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. · Pelaes v. United States
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Employers have an affirmative obligation to make a reasonable accommodation for a handicapped employee. Although they are not required to find another job for an employee who is not qualified for the job he or she was doing, they cannot deny an employee alternative employment opportunities reason ably available under the employer’s existing policies.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'Reasonable accommodation' in federal employment does not raise the same issues as it does, say, under § 504. There is little to stop the federal government from expending considerable money and effort to become a model employer of handicapped individuals, when that is its chosen policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Woodman v. Runyon“... the Rehabilitation Act has never been interpreted to require an employer to create alternative employment opportunities for a handicapped employee ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Shiring v. Runyon
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.