Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 323 F. Supp. 2d 693 - Williams v. Mancom, Inc.

323 F. Supp. 2d 693 - Williams v. Mancom, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
June 2009
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Smith v. First Union National Bank · Terry's Floor Fashions, Inc. v. Burlington Industries, Inc. · Chisholm v. United States Postal Service · Gregory v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

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.

  1. “I started to work for the [Defendant] on July 15, 2003, as an Assistant Vice President. Approximately June 2005, I was given the title of Vice President. On or about April 15, 2007, I became aware that I was not compensated as well as other Acquisition Vice Presidents who shared the same primary duties and responsibilities. On April 28, 2008, I was discharged allegedly for violating the Confidentiality Agreement when I disclosed the report, the Christmas Tree, to my attorney. After I was discharged, I did not receive the customary compensation given to other Vice Presidents for their period of non-compete after their discharge. Steve Fredrickson, the CEO by way of his attorney [sic], stated that I did not have the same duties and responsibilities as the other Investment Committee Vice Presidents and they were paid higher prior to their employment with the [Defendant]. No reason was given to me about the less than customary discharge pay. I believe I was paid less during my employment, given less of the customary compensation given to other Vice Presidents at the time of discharge and discharged in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and in violation of the Virginia Human Rights Act, VA Code 2.2-3900, et seq., because of my race, Black.”
    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.