Williams v. Shenango, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Hodgens v. General Dynamics Corp. (1998), Xin Liu v. Amway Corp. (2003)
4 federal appellate · 6 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. § 2601 (§ 2 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. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Fuentes v. Perskie · Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not only refusing to authorize FMLA leave, but discouraging an employee from using such leave.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The denial of the request could certainly be construed as interfering with the exercise of FMLA rights, as could She-nango’s suggestion that Williams take leave on a different week. Indeed, when Williams left, against orders denying him leave, he may have believed that he was doing so at his own risk, and without the assurances sought to be provided under the FMLA. The lack of assurances could be construed as “discouraging” an employee from asserting FMLA rights. The fact that Shenango may, ultimately, have retroactively designated this leave as covered by the FMLA does not negate the possibility that its initial response to Williams’ request may have “chilled” or otherwise discouraged Williams’ assertion of FMLA rights. Certainly, Shenango has not identified any cases suggesting that § 2615(a)(1) violations may be retroactively remedied. Reasonable persons could conclude that the initial denial of leave and the suggestion of rescheduling leave may, in fact, constitute “interference with” FMLA rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the employer has an obligation to inquire further in order to ascertain the specific details.”
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.