Seattle Opera v. National Labor Relations Board’s Empirical Analysis
292 F.3d 757 · 2002
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably United States v. Barnes (2002), Lerohl v. Friends of Minnesota Sinfonia (2003)
16 federal appellate · 1 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 29 U.S.C. § 152 (§ 2 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203
Relies on Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Darden · Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. · Sure-Tan, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board · Walling v. US
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'if an employer could confer independent contractor [i.e., non-employee] status through the absence of payroll deductions there would be few employees falling under the protection of the Act' ” (quoting J. Huizinga Cartage Co. v. NLRB, 941 F.2d 616 , 620 (7th Cir.1991)). Compare also Op. at 498 n. 4 (noting that FedEx”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The Board and the majority find it significant in determining whether the auxiliary choristers are employees rather than volunteers that the Opera “has the power or right to control and direct the person in the material details of how such work is to be performed.” Maj. op. at 762. This is outright silly. Are we to suppose that volunteer firefighters or volunteer rescue workers become “employees” because the fire chief or the head of the rescue squad directs them? ... Auxiliary choristers join other singers to perform musical works.... Rehearsal cannot be done independently. Choir members need to know not only the notes and the words, but they must also blend their voices together into a single sound.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]t is clear that ... the person asserting statutory employee status does have such status if (1) he works for a statutory employer in return for financial or other compensation ...; and (2) the statutory employer has the power or right to control and direct the person in the material details of how such work is to be performed.”
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.