Green v. Franklin National Bank’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.3d 903 · 2006
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Jones v. UPS Ground Freight (2012), Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp. (2015)
31 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 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. · Marguerite Hicks v. The Gates Rubber Company · Johnson v. Bunny Bread Co. · Kiel v. Select Artificials, Inc. · Kim v. Nash Finch Company
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that he or she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) an adverse employment action was taken against him or her; and (3) a causal connection exists between the two events.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]iming alone is insufficient to show a pretextual motive rebutting a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for an adverse employment action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Generally, “the threshold of proof necessary to establish a prima facie case is minimal.” Young v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 152 F.3d 1018, 1022 (8th Cir.1998). The timing of an adverse employment action in connection with the protected activity “can sometimes establish causation for purpose of establishing a prima facie case.” Sherman v. Runyon, 235 F.3d 406, 410 (8th Cir.2000). We have held that periods much longer than ... three weeks ... can be used to infer causation. See Smith v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir.1997) (inference of a causal connection was found when there was a six month gap between the adverse action and the protected activity); O’Bryan v. KTIV Television, 64 F.3d 1188 , 1193 (8th Cir.1995). “An inference of a causal connection between a charge of discrimination and termination can be drawn from the timing of the two events, but in general more than a temporal connection is required to present a genuine factual issue on retaliation.” Peterson v. Scott County, 406 F.3d 515, 524 (8th Cir.2005) (citing Smith v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 151 F.3d 813, 819-20 (8th Cir.1998)). In Peterson , a two-week gap between termination and protected activity was “close enough to establish causation in a prima facie ease.” Id. at 525 .”
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.