Michelle Nichols an Individual v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises Inc a Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
256 F.3d 864 · 2001
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 48 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 210 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Vasquez v. County of Los Angeles (2003), Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free School District (2004)
81 federal appellate · 48 district · 9 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
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 210 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“frequency of discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At its essence, the systematic abuse directed at Sanchez reflected a belief that Sanchez did not act as a man should act. Sanchez was attacked for walking and carrying his tray `like a woman,'.... derided for not having sexual intercourse with a waitress [,] .... [a]nd, the most vulgar name-calling directed at Sanchez was cast in female terms. We conclude that this verbal abuse was closely linked to gender.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“We do not imply that all gender-based distinctions are actionable under Title VII. For example, our decision does not imply that there is any violation of Title VII occasioned by reasonable regulations that require male and female employees to conform to different dress and grooming standards.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.