Glunt v. GES Exposition Services, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2023
14 district · 1 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. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 255 · 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. § 2615 (§ 105 of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In applying the integrated enterprise test, courts have noted the following to be probative evidence that one company employs the other’s employees for purposes of Title VII liability: (1) one company’s employees hired and fired the other’s employees and/or authorized [layoffs], recalls, and promotions of such employees; (2) one company routinely transferred employees between it and the other company, used the same work force, and/or handled the other’s payroll, (3) one company exercises more than general oversight of the other’s operations by supervising the other’s daily operations, such as production, distribution, purchasing, marketing, advertising, and accounts receivable, (4) the companies have common management in the form of interlocking boards of directors and/or common officers and managers, (5) the companies fail to observe basic formalities like keeping separate books and holding separate shareholder and board meetings, (6) the companies fail to maintain separate bank accounts, and (7) the companies file joint tax returns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“held open and filled”. PL.’s 2nd Mot.Summ.J., at 5-6. The only evidence she offers for this proposition is the deposition testimony of Defendants’ corporate designee, who, when asked "[w]hen was Ms. Holmes’ position filled by someone else?”answered that she didn’t know. She was never asked who filled the position. Id. at 3, Ex. 1, at 54-56. Plaintiff has not, therefore, offered evidence to show that her position was filled by someone who was not pregnant. 6 . In Reeves , the Supreme Court clarified that it is "permissible for the trier of fact to infer the ultimate fact of discrimination from the falsity of the employer's explanation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue for trial as to whether her alleged poor job performance is just a pretext for discrimination. Considering the conflicting performance appraisals, her supervisor’s sudden change in demeanor, the insulting comments of her supervisors regarding her pregnancy, and restrictions on her duties following the announcement of her pregnancy, a reasonable jury could render a verdict in Plaintiffs favor.”
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.