Nichols v. Truscott’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
41 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 1201 (Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989) · 5 U.S.C. § 1214 · 5 U.S.C. § 1221
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Conley v. Gibson · Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife · Harris v. Forklift Systems, 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is clear from all of plaintiffs filings in this case that she believes her workplace to be poorly managed and captive to persons of domineering and unpleasant personalities, and that she believes herself to be the object of persistent and undeserved harassment. Title VII, however, was enacted to redress discrimination ... in employment, rather than to ensure that the American workplace would remain free from poor management or harassment of all kinds, no matter how motivated.... Plaintiffs claims simply do not fall within the scope of Title VII....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Id. (internal citations omitted) To the extent the defendant argues for a categorical rule that the denial of a detail assignment generally does not constitute an adverse employment action, under Holcomb this Court cannot endorse such a rule. Id. Courts in this District have found that a denial of a detail assignment is cognizable under the statute as a claim for discrimination if the non-selection has”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“materially adverse consequences ... such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm.”
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.