Saunders v. Mills’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

cited by 6 later decisions

July 2019

most recently cited

4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 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 (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Ashcroft v. Iqbal

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

“complain[s] about a proposed [suspension] that never materialized and never 'affect[ed] the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or future employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm[,]' [i]t follows that the proposed [suspension] was not materially adverse for discrimination purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
e.g. 389 F. Supp. 3d 77 - Chambers v. Dist. of Columbia
“Ms. Saunders does not make any reference to her discrimination claim and fails to respond properly to the SBA’s motion. The discrimination claim will be dismissed.”); Stephenson v. Cox, 223 F.Supp.2d 119, 122 (D.D.C. 2002) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Aragon v. Tillerson
“experienced materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or future employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Massaquoi v. Dist. of Columbia

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.