34 F. Supp. 2d 969 - Settle v. Baltimore County’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 33 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 102 F. Supp. 2d 24 - Walker v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (2000), Adams v. Anne Arundel County Public Schools (2015)
1 federal appellate · 33 district · 1 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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 5851
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As a matter of law ... the facially neutral acts plaintiff finds subjectively unwelcome and hurtful are (1) the normal incidents of supervision (and supervision-even aggressive and unfriendly supervision-does not equate to harassment), or (2) viewed objectively, as they must be, acts which are episodic and sporadic in character so as not to support a rational inference that a reasonable member of plaintiffs protected class would find his or her workplace environment so abusive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment or interfere with one’s ability to perform [one’s] duties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“disciplinary measures enforced against him were more severe than those enforced against other employees.” Id. at 991. 4 . See infra note 16 for additional items cited by plaintiff. 5 . The key lock was apparently removed so managers would have access to the plaintiff's office when she was away. (See Def.’s Mem. Ex. I.) It was replaced with a different kind of lock. (See id.) 6 . Plaintiff alleges that upon her transfer to the Telecommunications Division, she was assigned to an office that contained”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“while it is certainly true that a court should examine instances of alleged discriminatory treatment holistically and not atomistically, this does not mean that evidence of a large number of meritless claims (or non-cognizable allegations) attains probative value when such claims are aggregated.”
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.