Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 645 FAPPX 948 - Thomas v. Dolgencorp, LLC

Thomas v. Dolgencorp, LLC’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
September 2017
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Holifield v. Reno · Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc. · Nix v. WLCY Radio/Rahall Communications

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

  1. “We analyze ADA discrimination claims under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis applied to Title VII employment discrimination claims. Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1366 (11th Cir.2000). Under that framework, a plaintiff-employee first establishes a pri-ma facie case of discrimination. See Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1087 (11th Cir.2004). To establish a prima facie case of ADA discrimination, a plaintiff must show (1) a disability, (2) that she was otherwise qualified to perform the job, and (3) that she was discriminated against based upon the disability. Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1193 (11th Cir.2004). The burden then shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate reason for its employment action. Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1087 . If it can, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to offer evidence that the reason is pretextual. Id. If the plaintiff fails to show pretext, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on that ground. EEOC v. Total Sys. Servs., 221 F.3d 1171 , 1177 (11th Cir. 2000). Where the defendant has met its burden of -articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, we may assume without deciding that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and decide the case on the question of pretext. See, e.g., Holifield v. Reno, 115 F.3d 1556 , 1564 (1997); Wascura v. City of S. Miami, 257 F.3d 1238 , 1243 (11th Cir.2001). Thomas v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 645 Fed.Appx. 948, 950-51 (11th”
    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.