Breda v. Wolf Camera & Video’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. “(1) she is a member of a protected group; (2) she was the subject of unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) the harassment occurred because of her sex; and (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Dupont · 148 F. Supp. 2d 1371 - Breda v. Wolf Camera, Inc.

2. “knew (actual notice) or should have known (constructive notice) of the harassment and failed to take remedial action.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 885 So. 2d 945 - Natson v. Eckerd Corp., Inc. · Johnson v. Booker T. Washington Broadcasting Service, Inc.

3. “[WCI] is an Atlanta-based corporation that sells cameras, film, and camera accessories, and provides photo-finishing and imaging services. [It hired Breda on 10/10/95] as a sales associate at [its Savannah, Georgia store]. The ... store is open every day during the same hours as the shopping mall. [Sharpley, the] store manager directly supervises all employees, and [Audie Baez, the] district manager visits the store once every five or six weeks to oversee the store manager. The [store] employees ... work in either sales or the photo-processing lab. After she was hired, [Breda] became one of three full-time sales associates at the store, and, like the other sales associates, she worked approximately 40 hours per week with 2 days off each week. [Breda] alleges she was subjected to sexual harassment throughout her employment with [WCI]. On [12/20/96, Bre-da] resigned from her employment with [WCI] because of this alleged harassment. She subsequently instituted this action, claiming she was subjected to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. [This] [C]ourt granted summary judgment to [WCI] on [Breda’s] claim after concluding Breda had not established a prima facie case of hostile work environment sexual harassment because she had not demonstrated a basis for holding [WCI] liable for the harassment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 148 F. Supp. 2d 1371 - Breda v. Wolf Camera, Inc.