Barbara Von Gunten v. State of Maryland, Maryland Department of the Environment, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae’s Empirical Analysis
243 F.3d 858 · 2001
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 65 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 221 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006), 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (2005)
33 federal appellate · 65 district · 10 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
Relies on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp. · Smith v. First Union National Bank · Mattern v. Eastman Kodak 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 221 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [he] engaged in a protected activity; (2) [PEPCO] took an adverse employment action against [him]; and (3) a causal connection existed between the protected activity and the asserted adverse action.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]erms, conditions, or benefits of a person's employment do not typically, if ever, include general immunity from the application of basic employment polices or exemption from . . . disciplinary procedures.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The proper object of inquiry in a claim of disparate treatment under § 717 [§ 2000e-16] is whether there has been “discrimination” in respect to “personnel actions affecting (covered) employees or applicants for employment....” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(a)(emphasis added). Disparate treatment theory as it has emerged in application of this and comparable provisions of Title VII, most notably § 703(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), has consistently focused on the question whether there has been discrimination in what could be characterized as ultimate employment decisions such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating. This is the general level of decision we think contemplated by the term “personnel actions” in § 717. By this, we suggest no general test for defining those “ultimate employment decisions” which alone should be held directly covered by § 717 and comparable antidiscrimination provisions of Title VII.”
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.