Davis v. Microsoft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Reno v. Kim Ho Ma · NextWave Personal Commmunications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · 104 Wash. 2d 627 - Dean v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle · 121 Wash. 2d 8 - Jane Doe v. Boeing Company · 127 Wash. 2d 401 - Goodman v. Boeing 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) because the reason the position exists is to perform that function; (2) because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed, and/or (3) because the function may be highly specialized so that a person is hired for his or her expertise to perform that particular function. The essential functions of a position may be determined by considering such factors as: (1) the employer’s judgment as to what functions of the job are essential; (2) written job descriptions; (3) the amount of time spent on the job performing the functions; (4) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the functions; (5) the past work experience of other employees in the position; and/or (6) the current work experience of employees in similar positions. These factors are not intended to be the only factors that you may or should consider.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.