Mansfield v. Billington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district ·

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he plain language of the EPA’s retaliation provision expressly limits the scope of its application. Ball [v. Memphis Bar-B-Q Co.], 228 F.3d [360,] 364 [ (4th Cir.2000) ]. It discusses the filing of “any complaint” in the context of formal legal actions, such as instituting proceedings, testifying, and serving on an industry committee. 29 U.S.C. § 215 (a)(3). By way of contrast, Title VII protects employees who have “opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (emphasis added). The phrase “opposed any practice” is markedly more inclusive than the language of the EPA’s anti-retaliation provision which protects the filing of “any complaint” in the context of specific formal actions. See Lambert [v. Genesee Hosp.], 10 F.3d [46,] 55 [ (2d Cir.1993) ] (explaining that the FLSA, unlike Title VII, prohibits retaliation for “three expressly enumerated types of conduct”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 669 F. Supp. 2d 11 - Mansfield v. Billington

2. “The defendant does not dispute that the plaintiff's letter to her supervisors is a protected activity under Title VII.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Touvian v. Dist. of Columbia