Schuler v. Supervalu, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
336 F.3d 702 · 2003
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Karen Sutton Kimberly Hintons v. United Air Lines Inc · Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams · Linda Cooper v. Olin Corporation Winchester Division · Conant v. City of Hibbing · Yarborough v. Devilbiss Air Power, 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By its terms, the ADA allows employers to prefer some physical attributes over others and to establish physical criteria. An employer runs afoul of the ADA when it makes employment decisions based on a physical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is regarded as substantially limiting a major life activity. Accordingly, an employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment — such as one’s height, build, or singing voice — are preferable to others, just as it is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.”
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.