Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
795 F.3d 941 · 2015
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12113 (§ 103 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12114 (§ 104 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Hubbard v. Environmental Protection Agency · Snead v. Metropolitan Property & Casualty Insurance · Sullivan v. River Valley School District · Palmer v. Circuit Court of Cook County
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An essential function of almost every job is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others.... [A]n employee ... is not qualified when ... stress leads him to threaten to kill his co-workers....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An essential function of almost every job is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others. See Williams v. Motorola, Inc. , 303 F.3d 1284 , 1290 (11th Cir. 2002). And while an employee can be qualified despite adverse reactions to stress, he is not qualified when that stress leads him to threaten to kill his co-workers in chilling detail and on multiple occasions (here, at least five times). This vastly disproportionate reaction demonstrated that Mayo could not perform an "essential function" of his job, and was not a "qualified individual." This is true regardless of whether Mayo's threats stemmed from his major depressive disorder. Cf. Newland v. Dalton , 81 F.3d 904 , 906 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Attempting to fire a weapon at individuals is the kind of egregious and criminal conduct which employees are responsible for regardless of any disability.").”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the heads of the supervisor and another manager. Id. The plaintiff made other comments to coworkers on several occasions that he wanted to bring a gun and shoot people at the workplace and made a specific comment about the time in the afternoon when the supervisor would be doing a”
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.