Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co.’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.3d 274 · 2012
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (§ 104 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · DiCarlo v. Potter · Smith v. Chrysler Corp.
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an employer’s proffered reason is considered honestly held where the employer can establish it reasonably reli[ed] on particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made. Thereafter, the burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the employer’s belief was not honestly held. An employee’s bare assertion that the employer’s proffered reason has no basis in fact is insufficient to call an employer’s honest belief into question, and fails to create a genuine issue of material fact.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The burden of proof at the prima facie stage is minimal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“theory arising from § 2615(a)(1), and (2) the”
3 later decisions 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.