Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 21 F.3d 1572 - King v. Hillen

King v. Hillen’s Empirical Analysis

21 F.3d 1572 · 1994

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
5
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently December 2020 · most notably Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co. (1994), Torres v. Pisano (1997)

26 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

4501994200020102020decided

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) · 5 U.S.C. § 7513 · 5 U.S.C. § 7543 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703

Relies on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. Manhart · Liegl v. Webb

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

  1. “[N]o principled argument supports the view that sex-based offensive behavior in the workplace is immune from remedy simply because it may be culturally tolerated outside of the workplace. The purpose of Title VII is not to import into the workplace the prejudices of the community, but through law to liberate the workplace from the demeaning influence of discrimination, and thereby to implement the goals of human dignity and economic equality in employment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]hat women who are the objects of discriminatory behavior because of their sex are able to maintain satisfactory job performance is not grounds for denigrating their concerns. The criterion is not what a reasonable woman employee is capable of enduring, but whether the offensive acts alter the conditions of employment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]n determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the Commission will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances....”
    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.