Basith v. Cook County’s Empirical Analysis
241 F.3d 919 · 2001
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Stone v. City of Indianapolis Public Utilities Division (2002), Hilt-Dyson v. City of Chicago (2002)
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Vande Zande v. State of Wisconsin Department of Administration R · Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc. · McKenzie v. Illinois Department of Transportation · Gile v. United Airlines, Inc.
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a reasonable accommodation case, like the present one, the plaintiff must first show that: 1) he was disabled; 2) his employer was aware of his disability; and 3) he was a qualified individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, could perform the essential functions of the employment position.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to consider the special assignment as proof that delivery was not an essential function because it would punish [the employer] for going beyond the ADA's requirements.” Id. 12 . Williams’ briefing is again lacking. Williams has abandoned the retaliation claim based on Eastside’s failure to provide him with enough light-duty work, presumably because it was meritless anyway (See, e.g., Doc. 23, ¶ 59,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court assumed that Wulff established her prima facie case of retaliation but granted summary judgment because Sentara explained that it removed Wulff from the schedule because she was unable to perform the essential functions of her job, and Wulff produced no evidence that this explanation was pretextual. We find the district court's analysis and conclusion to be correct.”
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.