Dawson v. Bumble & Bumble’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she is performing her duties satisfactorily; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on her membership in the protected class.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Black v. Pan American Laboratories, L.L.C. · Fraser v. Mta Long Island Rail Rd.

2. “exhibition of behavior considered to be stereotypically inappropriate for their gender”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc. · Vickers v. Fairfield Medical Center

3. “In sum, in contrast to the plaintiff in Price 'Waterhouse, who proffered evidence that her promotion to partnership depended upon her changing her behavior to better conform to gender stereotypes, or the plaintiff in Back [v. Hastings On Hudson Union Free School Dist., 365 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2004) ] who demonstrated a triable issue of fact as to whether her superiors felt that her continued employment violated gender stereotypes, Dawson has produced no substantial evidence from which we may plausibly infer that her alleged failure to conform her appearance to feminine stereotypes resulted in her suffering any adverse employment action at the hands of Bumble & Bumble. Thus, her Title VII claim based upon a gender stereotyping theory must fail.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eure v. Sage Corp.