Czekalski v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis
475 F.3d 360 · 2007
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 314 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 382 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms (2008), Baloch v. Kempthorne (2008)
27 federal appellate · 314 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, 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 382 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Next, you are instructed that the burden is on the Plaintiff to show that she suffered an adverse employment action. The Civil Rights Act does not apply and is not intended to apply to every workplace reassignment. An employer's decision that does not have a tangible effect on an employee does not qualify as an adverse action, even if the employee considers it insulting or offensive. Moreover, changes in duties or working conditions, including reassignments that do not have a tangible effect on the terms, conditions or privileges of employment are not adverse actions. Even if an action is contrary to an employee’s personal preferences, that does not make it an adverse employment action. However, it is for you to determine whether the reassignment of the Plaintiff to the Year 2000 Program was a reassignment to a position with significantly different responsibilities. An employee suffers an adverse employment action if she experiences materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions or privileges of employment such that you find objectively tangible harm. Whether a particular assignment of duties constitutes an adverse action, for purposes of Title VII, is a jury question, that is, one for you to determine.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[Wjithdrawing an employee’s supervisory duties,” for example, "constitutes an adverse employment action.” [Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422 , 426 (D.C.Cir.2003) ]; see Burke v. Gould, 286 F.3d 513 , 522 (D.C.Cir.2002). So, too, does “reassignment with significantly different responsibilities.” Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127 , 1131 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 , 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257 , 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998)); see Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889 , 902 (D.C.Cir.2006). Czekalski has raised a genuine issue as to whether the reassignment left her with "significantly different” — and diminished — supervisory and programmatic responsibilities.”
4 later decisions 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.