85 F. Supp. 3d 482 - Floyd v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
6 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1930 (§ 246 of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (Title 11)) · 2 U.S.C. § 1301 (Congressional Accountability Act of 1995) · 2 U.S.C. § 1311 · 2 U.S.C. § 1317 · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ejvidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a plaintiff could not prevail on a standalone failure-to-accommodate claim, the same alleged lack of accommodation could not constitute 'severe or pervasive' harassment for purposes of a hostile work environment claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matos v. Devos“his employer subjected him to discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working environment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matos v. Devos
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.