Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 283 F.3d 818 - Chandler v. Specialty Tires of America (Tennessee), Inc.

Chandler v. Specialty Tires of America (Tennessee), Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

283 F.3d 818 · 2002

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Logan v. Dayton Hudson Corp. · Ziegler v. IBP Hog Market, Inc. · Navarro v. Pfizer Corp. · Skrjanc v. Great Lakes Power Service Co.

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

  1. “Chandler was terminated from her job as a personnel assistant on May 22, 1998, while convalescing after a suicide attempt. Five days prior to her discharge, on Sunday, May 17, Chandler awoke, dressed her daughter, and attended church with her mother and stepfather. Following lunch at her parents’ home, Chandler left her daughter with her parents, crossed the street to her own residence, and took an overdose of pills. At nine o’clock that evening, Chandler’s parents entered her unlocked house and found her lying semi-conscious on the bed. They rushed her to the emergency room where she was placed in intensive care. 1 The next day she was transferred to Woodridge Hospital, where she was treated by Dr. Lee Ellen Naramore, a psychiatrist. During the week she was at Woodridge, Chandler kept in close contact with the plant manager, Joe McNeer. She told McNeer what had happened and that she needed time off for medical treatment; McNeer agreed to place her on paid leave. Nobody at Specialty indicated to Chandler that her job was in jeopardy. By the end of the week, she felt better and was planning to return to work the following Tuesday. Robert Beck, personnel manager for Specialty and Chandler’s immediate supervisor, learned of Chandler’s intentional overdose on Tuesday, May 19. Believing that such behavior demonstrated a lack of responsibility, Beck concluded that he could no longer trust Chandler to handle the duties of her position and decided to terminate her employment. Beck te”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Furthermore, we find that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether Beck fired Chandler because he regarded her as disabled. The undisputed evidence in the record is that Beck lost confidence in Chandler only after he discovered that she had taken an overdose of pills in a suicide attempt. His stated reason was that he thought her act of intentionally overdosing was irresponsi ble. Specialty has offered no evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the termination other than to emphasize that Beck considered only her act of overdosing and not her mental condition. This unsupported explanation is not sufficient to overcome Chandler’s evidence. Therefore, the case shall be remanded to the district court for trial on the THA claim.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]ny employer who violates [FMLA] shall be liable to any eligible employee affected ... for ... liquidated damages equal to the sum of the amount [of lost compensation and other actual monetary losses resulting from the violation] and. the interest [on that amount calculated at the prevailing rate], except that if an employer who has violated [FMLA] proves to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission which violated [FMLA] was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of [FMLA], such court may, in the discretion of the court, reduce the amount of the liability to the amount [of lost compensation and actual monetary losses] and interest.”
    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.