Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
141 F.3d 1453 · 1998
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (2005), Smith v. First Union National Bank (2000)
78 federal appellate · 13 district · 6 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 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 Yartzoff v. Thomas · Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co. · Page v. Bolger · Meeks v. Computer Associates International · Little v. United Technologies
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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we do not doubt that there is some threshold level of substantiality that must be met for unlawful discrimination to be cognizable under the anti-retaliation clause, we need not determine in this case the exact notch into which the bar should be placed. It is enough to conclude, as we do, that the actions about which Wideman complains considered collectively are sufficient to constitute prohibited discrimination. We need not and do not decide whether anything less than the totality of the alleged reprisals would be sufficient.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the protected activity and the adverse action are not completely unrelated.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plaintiff must show that (1) she [filed an EEOC charge]; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected expression.”
3 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.