Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 911 FSUPP 326 - Freemon v. Foley

Freemon v. Foley’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
September 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably Mitchell v. Chapman (2003), 52 F. Supp. 2d 403 - Kilvitis v. County of Luzerne (1999)

2 federal appellate · 8 district ·

140199520002010decided

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. § 2001 (Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (§ 2 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (§ 101 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2612 (§ 102 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2614 (§ 104 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 2617 (§ 107 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 29 U.S.C. § 630 (§ 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Falk v. Brennan · U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd. · Mary J. Riordan v. William L. Kempiners and Shirley Randolph

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The defendants argue that we should look to these other employment discrimination statutes for guidance in interpreting the FMLA. However, the definition of an “employer” under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA differs irom that used in the FMLA. The former statutes define an employer as a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who employs a certain number of people, “and any agent of such person.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (5)(A) (ADA), § 2000e(b) (Title VII); 29 U.S.C. § 630 (b) (ADEA). In contrast, the FMLA extends employer status to “any person who acts, directly or indirectly, in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer.” 29 U.S.C. 2611(4)(A)(ii)(I). Rather than mirroring these discrimination statutes, the FMLA tracks word for word the definition used in the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 203 (d) ..., 29 C.F.R. § 825.104 (d) (noting equivalence of FMLA’s and FLSA’s definition of employer). Thus, given the parallel between these two statutes, we look to the FLSA— rather than the aforementioned statutes— to enlighten our interpretation of the term “employer” under the FMLA.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) An employer means any person engaged in commerce or in any industry or activity affecting commerce who employs 50 or more employees for each working day during each of the 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or proceeding calendar year. See 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (4)(A)(i). (2) An employer includes any person who acts directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer to any of the employees of such employer; and an employer includes any successor in interest of an employer. See 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (4)(A)(ii). (3) An employer includes any “public agency” as that term is defined in the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (4)(A)(iii). (4) An employer includes the General Accounting Office and the Library of Congress. 21 See 29 U.S.C. § 2611 (4)(A)(iv).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The definition of “employer” in section 3(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 203(d), similarly includes any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee. As under the FLSA, individuals such as corporate officers “acting in the interest of an employer” are individually liable for any violations of the requirements of the FMLA”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.