Morrow v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
152 F.3d 559 · 1998
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Coleman v. Donahoe (2012), O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc. (2001)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Carstea v. Poplar Tree Homeowners Ass'n · United States v. Monton · Sarsha v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Drake v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Wal-Mart’s quick decision to terminate the plaintiffs may seem unfair in a work environment that appears rife with similarly off-color conduct. We have noted time and again, however, that “we do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions”. Title VII prohibits discriminatory employment actions, not hasty or ill-considered ones. Although some of Wal-Mart’s female employees seem to have engaged in questionable behavior, there is no evidence that any of this behavior sparked complaints of harassment like those that Wal-Mart received concerning [plaintiffs]. Without evidence of similar employee complaints, Wal-Mart cannot be faulted for failing to respond to these incidents in the same way that it responded to [plaintiffs’] situations.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Wal-Mart’s quick decision to terminate the plaintiffs may seem unfair in a work environment that appears rife with similarly off-color conduct.... Although some of Wal-Mart’s female employees seem to have engaged in questionable behavior, there is no evidence that any of this behavior sparked complaints of harassment like those that Wal-Mart received concerning [plaintiffs]. Without evidence of similar employee complaints, Wal-Mart cannot be faulted for failing to respond to these incidents in the same way that it responded to [plaintiffs’] situations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether couched in terms of establishing a prima facie case or in terms of demonstrating pretext, the inquiry remains the same: The plaintiffs . . . have the burden of showing that similarly-situated [male] employeesthat is, [male] employees who had been the subject of comparable complaints of sexual harassment were treated more favorably than the plaintiffs.”
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.