Sanchez v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
188 F.3d 740 · 1999
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Jordan v. Summers (2000), Gordon v. United Airlines, Inc. (2001)
11 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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. § 7 · 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Employment Opportunities for Individuals With Disabilities Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 706 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Russell v. Acme-Evans Co. · Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co. · Smart v. Ball State University · Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Telephone 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.
“[a] plaintiff can establish pretext either directly, with evidence suggesting that retaliation or discrimination was the most likely motive for the termination, or indirectly, by showing that the employer’s proffered reason was not worthy of belief. See Johnson v. Sullivan, 945 F.2d 976 , 980 n. 5 (7th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). The indirect method requires some showing that “(1) the defendant’s explanation has no basis in fact, or (2) the explanation was not the ‘real reason’, or (3) ... the reason stated was insufficient to warrant the [termination].” Johnson v. City of Fort Wayne, 91 F.3d 922, 931 (7th Cir.1996) (citations omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[M]ere knowledge of the plaintiffs protected activity prior to an adverse employment action does not establish a retaliatory motive.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“suspicious timing can raise an inference of discrimination sufficient to satisfy the causation element of the prima facie case.”
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.