Lambert v. Ackerley’s Empirical Analysis
180 F.3d 997 · 1998
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (2011), Santiago Pedro-Mateo v. Immigration and Naturalization Service (2000)
54 federal appellate · 22 district · 5 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. § 215 · 30 U.S.C. § 820 · 33 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 5851 · 49 U.S.C. § 20109
Relies on Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority · West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey · Tennessee Coal Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co · Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. · Union Bank v. Wolas
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t shall be unlawful for any person— (3) to discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter, or has testified or is about to testify in any such proceeding, or has served or is about to serve on an industry committee.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[I]t is clear that so long as an employee communicates the substance of his allegations to the employer ... he is protected by section 215(a)(3)”); Love, at 387 (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress did not seek to secure compliance with prescribed standards [under the FLSA] through continuing detailed federal supervision or inspection of payrolls. Rather it chose to rely on information and complaints received from employees seeking to vindicate rights claimed to have been denied. Plainly, effective enforcement could thus only be expected if employees felt free to approach officials with their grievances.”
2 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.