Harrell v. Donahue’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “causes more than a de minimis impact on co-workers”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mial v. Foxhoven · Miller v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

2. “It is not surprising that nothing in RFRA alters the exclusive nature of Title VII with regard to employees’ claims of religion-based employment discrimination. Nothing in pre-Smith case law permitted an employee alleging employment discrimination based on religion to bypass Title VII’s exclusive and comprehensive scheme. Accordingly, since RFRA was only enacted to overturn Smith and restore pre-Smith case law, the Senate Report merely clarifies that Congress did not intend RFRA to subsume other statutory schemes .... It is equally clear that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for job-related claims of federal religious discrimination, de spite Francis’s attempt to rely upon the provisions of RFRA.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holly v. Jewell

3. “deny the shift and job preference of some employees, as well as deprive them of their contractual rights, in order to accommodate or prefer the religious needs of others.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. JBS United States, LLC