Haywood v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
323 F.3d 524 · 2003
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. · Castaneda v. Partida
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he case must be tried unless the defendant presents unrebutted evidence that it would have taken the adverse employment action against the plaintiff anyway, “in which event the defendant’s retaliatory motive, even if unchallenged, was not a but-for cause of the plaintiffs harm.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“mere unhappiness and inconvenience are not actionable under Title VII”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“far too long—at least on this record—to allow a reasonable fact-finder to infer that her termination was causally related to the filing of her complaint”), overruled in part on other grounds, Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016); Filipovic v. K&R Express Sys., Inc., 176 F.3d 390 , 399 (7th Cir. 1999) (no causal connection when gap is four months and plaintiff”
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.