Mulhall v. Advance Security, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
19 F.3d 586 · 1994
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Cooper v. Southern Co. (2004), Alexander v. Fulton County (2000)
18 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Bonner v. City of Prichard
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A plaintiff's judicial complaint is limited by the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]o employer ... shall discriminate, within any establishment in which such employees are employed, between employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to employees in such establishment at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex in such establishment for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions, except where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (in) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality or production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Beginning on or about November 2008 up to December 31, 2008 I have been denied a promotion to Service Technician. I complained formally to Human Resources on December 10, 2008 that I felt that I was being denied a promotion based on my race and age. No investigation was performed. On February 23, 2009 I was discharged. No reason was given for denial of my promotion. The reason given for my termination was that: “I had a poor attendance record and that I did not meet sales goals.” I believe I have been discriminated against based on my race (African-American) and in retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and because of my age (56) in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment act of 1967, as amended.”
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.