Moore v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.3d 558 · 2004
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (2011), Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. (2011)
9 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Hensley v. Eckerhart · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. · El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any employer who violates the provisions of section 215(a)(3) of this title shall be liable for such legal or equitable relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of section 215(a)(3) of this title, including without limitation employment, reinstatement, promotion, and the payment of wages lost and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n order to facilitate appellate review of a fee award, a district court must provide a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the award. The district court should state with some particularity which of the claimed hours the court is rejecting, which it is accepting, and why. Failure to provide such an explanation requires us to remand the case for further consideration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must prove that (1) he or she engaged in a protected activity under the FLSA; (2) his or her exercise of this right was known to the employer; (3) thereafter, the employer took an employment action adverse to her; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.”
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.