Dotson v. Pfizer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
558 F.3d 284 · 2009
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County (2013), 224 W. Va. 160 - Peters v. Rivers Edge Mining, Inc. (2009)
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Virginia Eastern District Court)
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 353 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (§ 107 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. · Mart Corporation v. Cartier Inc 47th Street Photo 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]mployers may, at their option, require that employees take FMLA leave for certain reasons (birth, adoption or foster care placement under § 2612(a)(l)(A)-(B)) in one block of up to twelve weeks rather than intermittently. The requirement that employer and employee must “agree” on intermittent leave means that employers can refuse to allow this type of leave in birth, adoption and foster care placement cases. By contrast, employees have an unfettered right to take FMLA leave because of a serious health condition intermittently when “medically necessary,” with or without employer consent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A trial court may grant judgment as a matter of law when it finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-moving party. A court, however, may not disturb the verdict where there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find in the non-movant’s favor. A trial court may not appropriately enter [JMOL] unless it concludes, after consideration of the record as a whole in the light most favorable to the non-movant, that the evidence presented supports only one reasonable verdict, in favor of the moving party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““[w]hile the FMLA does not specifically forbid discharging an employee in retaliation for his use of FMLA leave, 29 C.F.R. § 825.220 (c) states that employers are ‘prohibited from discriminating against employees or prospective employees who have used FMLA leave’ and that ‘employers cannot use the taking of FMLA leave as a negative factor in employment actions, such as hiring, promotions, or disciplinary actions.’ Courts have recognized that the FMLA provides a cause of action for retaliation.””
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.