Peterson v. Scott County’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.3d 515 · 2005
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Torgerson v. City of Rochester (2011), Wallace v. DTG Operations, Inc. (2006)
44 federal appellate · 14 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 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“close enough to establish causation in a prima facie case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sexual discrimination that creates a hostile or abusive work environment is a violation of Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A hostile work environment arises when sexual conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. Hostile work environment claims are limited in nature, requiring a high evi-dentiary showing that the plaintiffs workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. To establish a prima facie hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that she was a member of a protected group; (2) the occurrence of unwelcome harassment; (3) a causal nexus between the harassment and her membership in the protected group; (4) that the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and effective remedial action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation [in the employment context], a plaintiff must show that she engaged in statutorily protected activity, suffered an adverse employment action, and that there was a causal connection between the adverse employment action and the protected activity.”
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.