Williams v. Saxbe’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently March 2012
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 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 (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Federal Maritime Commission · Geduldig v. Aiello · Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. · Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . whether this case presents a policy or practice of imposing a condition of sexual submission on the female employees ... or whether this was a non-employment related personal encounter requires a factual determination. It is sufficient for purposes of the motion to dismiss that the plaintiff has alleged it was the former in this case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Paragraph 21 of the Complaint alleges that the supervisor’s conduct was a policy or practice imposed on the plaintiff and other women similarly situated. This is an essential allegation for presenting a cause of action. Plaintiffs theory has never been that this was merely an isolated personal incident." (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to determine whether the Hearing Examiner's decision that the (Department) had failed to affirmatively establish the absence of discrimination by the clear weight of the evidence was based on substantial evidence and was rational.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Bell
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.