King v. Marriott International, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “In reaching its contrary decision, the Fifth Circuit merely recited section 510 without even addressing the facial inapplicability of section 510 to intra-office complaints.... [T]he Ninth Circuit at least recognized the evident inapplicability of the statute’s language to intraoffice complaints, but concluded that ERISA provides a remedy since the “statute was clearly meant to protect whistle blowers” and could be “fairly construed to protect a person in plaintiffs position if, in fact, she was fired because she was protesting a violation of law in connection with an ERISA plan.” We simply do not agree that the language of section 510 can be “fairly construed” to extend to such a circumstance. Nor do we think that we would be free to reject the most compelling interpretation of the statutory language for a “fair” interpretation, even if we preferred as a matter of policy the result yielded by the broader interpretation. .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Griggs v. Triple S Industrial Corp. · 912 F. Supp. 2d 457 - Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc.

2. ““In the instant case, as well, the use of the phrase ‘testified or is about to testify’ does suggest that the phrase ‘inquir[ies] or proceeding^]’ referenced in section 510 is limited to the legal or administrative, or at least to something more formal than written or oral complaints made to a supervisor. The phrase ‘given information’ does no more than insure that even the provision of non-testimonial information (such as incriminating documents) in an inquiry or proceeding would be covered. And, here as well [ ], the anti-retaliation provision in section 510 is much narrower than the equivalent [in Title VII.] 5 ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc. · 912 F. Supp. 2d 457 - Sexton v. Panel Processing, Inc.

3. ““It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge, fine, suspend, expel, or discriminate against any person because he has given information or has testified or is about to testify in any inquiry or proceeding relating to this chapter or the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nicolaou v. Horizon Media, Inc. · Edwards v. A.H. Cornell & Son, Inc.