Lors v. Dean’s Empirical Analysis
726 F.3d 1036 · 2013
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 12202 (§ 502 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer · Board of Trustees of the University of Alabamas v. Patricia Garrett
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Lors’s evidence and explanations are not sufficient as a matter of law to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer’s proffered reasons were pretextual or create an issue of fact on that subject, especially when the findings of two state tribunals have found preclusive effect that there was cause for BIT to discipline Lors and terminate Lors’s employment apart from the ADA claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lors v. Dean
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.