847 F. Supp. 2d 528 - Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 202 · 9 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Mitsubishi Motors Corporation v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc Soler Chrysler-Plymouth Inc · Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp. · Volt Information Sciences Inc v. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University · Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is a difference, however, between claims that might slip through the cracks because plaintiffs choose not to prosecute them individually, and claims for which a plaintiff seeks redress but is precluded from vindicating her rights. This difference is the difference between the situation faced by the Concepcions and that faced by [the plaintiff]. The terms of the arbitration agreement at issue in Concepcion ensured that the Concepcions could bring their claim in arbitration on an individual basis, either representing themselves or with counsel. The fact that a plaintiff in the same situation as the Concepcions might choose not to make a claim for such a small overcharge is not the Court’s concern, even if a class-action lawyer might be eager to bring the case on behalf of all similarly situated plaintiffs, but for the class-action waiver. By contrast, the terms of the arbitration agreement and the cost of discovery in [the plaintiff’s] case preclude her from redressing alleged [Fair Labor Standards Act] violations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Feeney v. Dell Inc.““The facts before this Court establish that the Agreement at issue in this case would operate as a waiver of [the employee’s] right to pursue her statutory remedies pursuant to the FLSA [and New York State law]. The Court therefore finds the doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Concepcion inapplicable to the different facts [the employee] faces.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Feeney v. Dell Inc.
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.