Protos v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
797 F.2d 129 · 1986
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Abramson v. William Paterson College (2001), Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (2015)
41 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 3612 (§ 812 of the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII, Civil Rights Act of 1968))
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Lemon v. Kurtzman · Everson v. Board of Education · Welsh II v. United States · In re Martin-Trigona
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, be cause of such individual’s ... religion. ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]lthough we are inclined to believe the hardship question was considerably closer than the district court did, we cannot say that its factual determinations, based on its assessment of the witnesses' credibility and its familiarity with the evidence, are clearly erroneous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's . . . religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.”
2 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.