Shea v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 13 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Morgan , the Court foreclosed the use of the “continuing violation” doctrine to restore an untimely claim involving a separate act of discrimination “such as termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” [536 U.S.] at 113-14, 122 S.Ct. 2061 . It held that “discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges.” Id. at 113 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 . “Each discrete discriminatory act,” the Court explained, “starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act.” Id. Morgan dooms any hope Shea entertained that his current (and allegedly discriminatory) paychecks can resurrect his otherwise untimely challenges to the paychecks he received before January 12, 2001 — or 180 days before he filed his grievance.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zuurbier v. Medstar Health, Inc.

2. “[ Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. ] Morgan . . . explicitly preserved Bazemore, which Morgan described as addressing `a discriminatory salary structure.' 536 U.S. [101,] 112, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 [(2002)]. . . . It would be very odd to use such a term for the facts in Evans [or Lorance v. AT & T Techs., 490 U.S. 900 , 109 S.Ct. 2261, 104 L.Ed.2d 961 (1989)] . . . . The acts [in those cases] had consequences under the employer's non-discriminatory seniority system, to be sure, but they could hardly be described as launching a two-class pay structure based on a forbidden criterion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Hulteen v. AT & T Corp.

3. ““Whether and under what circumstances a plaintiff may bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging illegal pay discrimination when the disparate pay is received during the statutory limitations period, but is the result of intentionally discriminatory pay decisions that occurred outside the limitations period.” Pet. for Cert. i.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc.