Cottrill v. MFA, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
443 F.3d 629 · 2006
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 431 F. Supp. 2d 76 - Lemmons v. Georgetown University Hospital (2006), Adams v. Austal, U.S.A., L.L.C. (2014)
9 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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
Relies on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Monge v. California · Brosseau v. Haugen
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.
“1.I was hired by this Respondent in 2000. In the past 300 days, I have been subjected to the following discriminatory terms and conditions of employment: (a) Around August 1, 2003, I was required to bring in proof that my mother-in-law passed away and proof that I was married. (b) Around November, 2003, I was told to send my supervisor a note if I sign into my computer three minutes or more late; this policy has since changed, (c) Around December 22, 2003, I was reminded that I could not make personal phone calls, even though I don’t make personal calls. Also on December 22, 2003, I was disciplined in the form of being placed on a Performance Plan, rather than being provided an effective reasonable accommodation. 2. I was not given a reason for the above-mentioned terms and conditions of employment. I was informed I was being placed on a Performance Plan because I took off more than three days in a six-month period. 3. I believe that Respondent violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, on the basis of my race plus gender (Black female) when I was subjected to the above-mentioned discriminatory terms and conditions of employment. I also believe the Respondent violated Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 on the basis of my being a qualified individual with a disability when I was disciplined rather than being provided an effective reasonable accommodation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination based on a hostile work environment, a plaintiff employee must establish that (1) she was a member of a protected group; (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; and (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to affect a term, condition, or privilege of employment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file ... show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
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.