Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 F.3d 625 - Torres v. Pisano

Torres v. Pisano’s Empirical Analysis

116 F.3d 625 · 1997

Citation profile

424
cited by 424 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

87 federal appellate · 38 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 424 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)

87 federal appellate · 38 district · 21 state decisions

22401997200020102020decided

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 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (§ 901 of the Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Tomka v. Seiler Corp. · Andrews v. City of Philadelphia · Lovett v. United States

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

  1. ““[A] material adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment must be more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. A material adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material benefits or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(A) the official is at a sufficiently high level in the company’s management hierarchy to qualify as a proxy for the company; or (B) the official is charged with a duty to act on the knowledge and stop the harassment; or (C) the official is charged with a duty to inform the company of the harassment.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'of such quality or quantity that a reasonable employee would find the conditions of her employment altered for the worse.'”
    6 later decisions 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.