Trujillo v. Pacificorp’s Empirical Analysis
524 F.3d 1149 · 2008
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Daniels v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2012), Smothers v. Solvay Chemicals, Inc. (2014)
18 federal appellate · 8 district ·
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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Morgan v. Hilti, Inc. · Anderson v. Coors Brewing Co. · Richmond v. Oneok, 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The three situations] can be illustrated as follows: an employee is fired (or suffers some other adverse personnel action) because (1) (“expense”) his spouse has a disability that is costly to the employer because the spouse is covered by the company’s health plan; (2a) (“disability by association”) the employee’s homosexual companion is infected with HIV and the employer fears that the employee may also have become infected, through sexual contact with the companion; (2b) (another example of disability by association) one of the employee’s blood relatives has a disabling ailment that has a genetic component and the employee is likely to develop the disability as well (maybe the relative is an identical twin); (3) (“distraction”) the employee is somewhat inattentive at work because his spouse or child has a disability that requires his attention, yet not so inattentive that to perform to his employer’s satisfaction he would need an accommodation, perhaps by being allowed to work shorter hours. The qualification concerning the need for an accommodation (that is, special consideration) is critical because the right to an accommodation, being limited to disabled employees, does not extend to a nondisabled associate of a disabled person. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.8 ; Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, supra, 129 F.3d [1076,] 1083-85 [(10th Cir.1997) ]; Tyndall v. National Education Centers, Inc., supra, 31 F.3d [209,] 214 [ (4th Cir.1994) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The burden of establishing a prima facie case in the McDonnell Douglas framework is not onerous. It is because of this relatively lax burden that we allow temporal proximity between a protected activity and an adverse action to establish a prima facie case; for the same reason, we have not imported this lessened standard to pretext analysis where the burden is more demanding and requires a plaintiff to assume the normal burden of any plaintiff to prove his or her case at trial. Allowing very close temporal proximity to operate as a proxy for this evidentiary requirement would not further the substantive purposes of our inquiry at this stage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the closer in time a protected action or condition is followed by an adverse action, the more likely temporal proximity will support an inference of discrimination.”
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.