Scott v. Johanns’s Empirical Analysis
409 F.3d 466 · 2005
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Laber v. Harvey (2006), Ellis v. England (2005)
8 federal appellate · 17 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Chandler v. Roudebush · Togo West Secretary of Veterans Affairs v. Michael Gibson · Second Amendment Foundation v. United States Conference of Mayors · Wilson v. Peña · Moore v. Devine
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n a federal-sector Title VII case, any remedial order must rest on judicial findings of liability, and nothing in the statute's language suggests that such findings are unnecessary in cases where a final administrative disposition has already found discrimination and awarded relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under regulations promulgated by the [EEOC] pursuant to Title VII, the employee [begins] by filing a complaint with her agency. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (a). The employing agency then conducts an investigation and, if the employee so requests, refers the matter to an EEOC administrative judge for a hearing. Id. §§ 1614.106(e)(2), 1614.108-09. After the employing agency investigates, or the administrative judge issues a decision, the employing agency must take “final action.” Id. § 1614.110. If the employee never .requests a hearing, the agency’s final action must “consist of findings ... on the merits of each issue ... and, when discrimination is found, appropriate remedies and relief.” Id. § 1614.110(b). If the employee requests a hearing, the employing agency’s “final order shall notify the complainant whether or not the agency will fully implement the administrative judge’s decision.” Id. § 1614.110(a). An employee who is aggrieved by the agency’s final disposition of her complaint may then either appeal to the EEOC ór file suit in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c). Id. § 1614.110.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Bush · Jones v. Castro“In . . . enforcement actions, the court reviews neither the discrimination finding nor the remedy imposed, examining instead only whether the employing agency has complied with the administrative disposition.”
2 later decisions 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.