Traylor v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
295 F.3d 783 · 2002
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Rhodes v. Illinois Department of Transportation (2004), Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (2002)
40 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Smart v. Ball State University · Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Illinois, Inc.
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“more disruptive than a mere inconvenience or an alteration of job responsibilities. A materially adverse change might be indicated by a termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation. Traylor v. Brown, 295 F.3d 783 , 788 (7th Cir.2002) (quoting Rabinovitz v. Pena, 89 F.3d 482 , 488 (7th Cir.1996)); see also Markel, 276 F.3d at 911 (finding that being”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To so hold would essentially prevent any employer from prevailing at the summary judgment stage because an employer will almost always have to rely on the testimony of one of its agents to explain why the agent took the disputed action. Moreover, consistent with the plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment by merely claiming a jury could disbelieve the employer’s reason. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. G-K-G, Inc., 39 F.3d 740, 746 (7th Cir.1994).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Once she has done so, the employer must then produce a nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action. If the employer does so, the plaintiff must then present sufficient evidence that would enable a trier of fact to find that the explanation is pretextual.”
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.