Rieger v. Orlor, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
5 district ·
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth · United States v. Bilzerian
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Kleiner’s first opinion — that defendants could have accommodated plaintiffs disability without significant impact, but instead retaliated against plaintiff by moving her to a less desirable position ...— includes two legal conclusions based on certain facts in the record and therefore impermissibly invades the jury’s province to apply the applicable law to the facts of the case and reach ultimate legal conclusions. While Kleiner is qualified, given his education and experience in the human resources field, to opine on accommodations that could have been made, or are frequently made, to accommodate conditions such as plaintiffs insomnia, Kleiner’s opinion is not framed in those terms. Rather, because Klein-er’s opinion does not proffer any specialized knowledge, and invokes legal standards (i.e.,■ that defendants could have accommodated plaintiffs disability without significant impact, and that defendants retaliated against plaintiff), his opinion would “not aid the jury in making a decision, but rather attempts to substitute [his] judgment for the jury’s.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the theory or technique on which the expert relies has been or could be tested; (2) whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) the known or potential rate of error of the technique or theory when applied; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling the technique's operation; and (5) whether the theory or technique has been generally accepted in the scientific community.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. SLSJ, LLC v. Kleban
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.