Case Citator › Baird v. Rose

Baird v. Rose

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
192 F.3d 462
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
52 of 52
Citing cases (total)
52
Treatment dates
2001–2012
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Baird v. Rose has been criticized in two opinions outside the Fourth Circuit; both treatments are listed below. All 52 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Seventh Circuit disagreed with Baird's reading of one of its earlier cases, and the First Circuit found Baird's pre-Gross mixed-motive reasoning unpersuasive for Rehabilitation Act retaliation. Neither court overruled Baird's Title II ADA holding. Later courts in the Fourth Circuit continued to apply that holding to Title II claims.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

52 later cases cite Baird v. Rose; 52 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Baird v. Rose?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Seventh Circuit said Baird misread its earlier decision in Despears, while leaving Baird's separate Title II causation holding untouched.

    Pernice v. City of Chicago · Seventh Circuit · filed

    Two of our sister circuits have criticized Despears, both reading that case as affirming summary judgment for the employer because the plaintiff’s alcoholism was a partial cause, but not the sole cause, of his demotion. See Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 469 n. 7 (4th Cir. 1999); ... But these cases misread Despears, which holds only that the plaintiff’s alcoholism was a partial cause of his drunk driving incident, but that his drunk driving incident was the sole cause of his demotion.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The First Circuit found Baird's pre-Gross use of Title VII's mixed-motive approach unpersuasive in a Rehabilitation Act retaliation case.

    Palmquist v. Shinseki · First Circuit · filed

    While the plaintiff tries to rebut the reasoning of these decisions by hawking other cases, see, e.g., ... Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 470 (4th Cir. 1999) (same); ... those cases are not persuasive because they predate Gross.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Baird v. Rose and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace