937 F. Supp. 258 - Graboski v. Guiliani’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 31 U.S.C. § 6711 (§ 31001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 31 U.S.C. § 6716 (§ 31001 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994) · 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (§ 101 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Raphan v. United States · Alexander v. Choate · Zerman v. Melton
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“); EEOC v. J.M. Huber Corp., 927 F.2d 1322 , 1331 (5th Cir.1991) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires ____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This Court is bound to defer to reasonable interpretations of Title I of the ADA proffered by the EEOC, the regulatory agency charged with its administration. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 844 , 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2782 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). There is nothing unreasonable about the EEOC’s view. It gives effect to one of the primary goals of the ADA — eradicating the exclusion of people with disabilities from opportunities afforded to persons without disabilities. [Footnote omitted] See 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112 (b)(l)-(7) (defining various forms of discrimination that operate to exclude to persons with disabilities from employment-related opportunities and benefits); id. § 12132 (focus on exclusion from benefits of services, programs or activities of a public entity). All persons — disabled or not — who have served twenty years are eligible to retire on a basis that would include entitlement to VSF payments. No one who has served less than twenty years may retire on a basis that' does so. That is not actionable discrimination.”
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.