Freeman v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
11 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Clark County School District v. Breeden · Duckworth v. State · 246 Ga. App. 71 - Deep Six, Inc. v. Abernathy
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[A] plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, meaning that it might well have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making [the statutorily-protected disclosure]." Cobb v. City of Roswell , 533 Fed. Appx. 888 , 896, 2013 U. S. App. LEXIS 16608 at (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R. Co. v. White , 548 U.S. 53 , 67-68, 126 S.Ct. 2405 , 165 LE2d [L.Ed.2d] 345 (2006) ). The actionable employer conduct must be "significant," rather than "trivial." Burlington Northern , 548 U.S. at 67-68 [ 126 S.Ct. 2405 ]. We conclude that a reasonable employee would not have found this conduct - incorrectly warning [the plaintiff] that an employee would be transferred - to be materially adverse. For these reasons, it is immaterial that this warning occurred in the same month in which [the plaintiff] relayed her concerns....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]e are not required to decide 4 whether the McDonnell Douglas framework should be adopted in whistleblower retaliation cases because, under any standard, [the plaintiff] has not pointed to record evidence that any materially adverse employment action was a matter of retaliation for her whistle-blowing activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]e are not required to decide whether the McDonnell Douglas framework should be adopted in whistleblower retaliation cases because under any standard , [the plaintiff] has not pointed to record evidence that any materially adverse employment action was a matter of retaliation for her whistle-blowing activity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.