Peebles v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
354 F.3d 761 · 2004
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Mershon v. St. Louis University (2006), 600 F. Supp. 2d 38 - Franklin v. Potter (2009)
11 federal appellate · 21 district · 2 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
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett · Kiel v. Select Artificials, 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In a reasonable accommodation case, the `discrimination' is framed in terms of the failure to fulfill an affirmative dutythe failure to reasonably accommodate the disabled individual's limitations. The Act compels employers to modify their work requirements to enable disabled individuals to have the same opportunities as their non-disabled counterparts. The concern is compelling behavior, not policing an employer's actions that, when accompanied by an invidious discriminatory intent, are unlawful. As such, it is not the employer's discriminatory intent in taking adverse employment action against a disabled individual that matters. Rather, discrimination occurs when the employer fails to abide by a legally imposed duty. The known disability triggers the duty to reasonably accommodate and, if the employer fails to fulfill that duty, we do not care if he was motivated by the disability."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“reasonable accommodations to the known physical ... limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an . . . employee, unless [the employer] can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of [the employer].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] claim against an employer for failing to reasonably accommodate a disabled employee does not turn on the employer's intent or actual motive.”
2 later decisions 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.