D. Philip Veitch, Rev., Appella’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
84
cited by 84 later decisions
June 2019
most recently cited
72 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Allen v. Wright · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · O'Shea v. Littleton
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] plaintiff bringing an employment discrimination claim under Title VII on the theory of ‘constructive discharge’ must show that the employer deliberately created intolerable work conditions that forced the plaintiff to quit. The inquiry is objective: Did working conditions become so intolerable that a reasonable person in the employee’s position would have felt compelled to resign? We have stated before that the mere existence of workplace discrimination is insufficient to make out a constructive discharge claim; constructive discharge ... requires a finding of discrimination and the existence of certain aggravating factors. ‘Aggravating factors’ are those aspects of a discriminatory work environment that, by making the workplace so disagreeable, prevent the reasonable employee from seeking remediation on the job.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Veiteh’s argument seems to be that if the Navy’s actions against him ... were unlawful, then they were per se coercive, whether or not those actions would actually force a reasonable person in Veiteh’s position to resign. For this extraordinary proposition, Veitch relies on one Court of Claims case, Roskos v. United States, 213 Ct.Cl. 34 , 549 F.2d 1386 (1977), in which the court said, “An action is not voluntary if it is produced by government action which is wrongful.” Id. at 1389-90 (emphasis added). But in that case, the illegal act was the unauthorized transfer of the plaintiff to another city, which the court described as one that “[left] the employee with no practicable alternative [but to resign].” Thus, Roskos , far from announcing a new standard for challenges to government action, is entirely consistent with the Federal Circuit’s tripartite duress test. The Roskos court simply found that “circumstances permitted no other alternative.” Carmichael, 298 F.3d at 1372 . It can hardly be claimed that the Zoeller Report left Veitch with no practical alternative but resignation. Indeed, Veitch could have appealed the results of Zoeller’s investigation, but chose not to do so. Veitch thus had a “reasonable alternative” to resignation that negates the second duress requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief ... if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.