262 F. Supp. 2d 509 - Newmark v. Principi’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 38 U.S.C. § 4110 · 38 U.S.C. § 7401 · 38 U.S.C. § 7402 · 38 U.S.C. § 7407 · 38 U.S.C. § 7461 · 38 U.S.C. § 7463 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Brown v. General Services Administration · Davis v. Passman · Jenkins v. McKeithen
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Third Circuit has held that Congress intended the ADEA to preempt Bivens claims against agency officials for age discrimination in federal employment. See Purtill v. Harris, 658 F.2d 134, 137-38 (3d Cir.1981) (analyzing Bush and holding that “in light of the existence of ADEA remedies the [federal] employer-employee relationship ... is a special factor that counsels hesitation in recognizing a constitutional cause of action absent affirmative contrary indications from Congress.”); Madden v. Runyon, 899 F.Supp. 217, 225 (E.D.Pa.1995) (stating that “the exclusive remedy for federal employment age discrimination is the ADEA” and barring plaintiffs Bivens claim that “merely mirrors his claims under ... the ADEA”) (citing Purtill, 658 F.2d at 137 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“See Bumpus v. Runyon, No. 94 Civ. 2570(DC), 1997 WL 154053 at (S.D.N.Y. Apr.2, 1997) (holding that “to the extent [plaintiffs] constitutional claims arise out of the alleged [age] discrimination against plaintiff, those claims are barred by ... the ADEA”) (citing Brown v. General Services Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 825 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)); Tapia-Tapia v. Potter, 322 F.3d 742, 745 (1st Cir.2003) (“To the extent that [plaintiffs constitutional] claims are a mere restatement of his age discrimination claim, they are not justiciable. The ADEA provides the exclusive federal remedy for age discrimination in employment.”).”
1 later decision 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.