Hamed v. Wayne County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. “Thé general rule that an employer is not liable for acts of its employee outside the scope of its business ... does not preclude vicarious ' liability in every instance. This Coürt has consistently recognized that an employer can be held liable for its employee’s conduct if the employer knew or should have known of the employee’s propensities and criminal record before.that employee committed an intentional tort. This inquiry involves an analysis of whether an employer had (1) actual or constructive knowledge of prior similar conduct and • (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the employee’s propensity to act in accor dance with that conduct. Under this two-pronged approach, the conduct at issue may be so close in time to prior similar conduct that knowledge under the first prong gives rise to a valid inference that the conduct was foreseeable under the second,prong. Conversely, if an employee’s actions were temporally distant and the employee’s recent record suggested a change in character, foreseeability would not be established.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 130 F. Supp. 3d 1073 - K.S. v. Detroit Public Schools

2. “Discrimination because of sex includes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment means unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct or communication of a sexual nature under the following conditions: ( i ) Submission to the conduct or communication is made a term or condition either explicitly or implicitly to obtain employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing. ( ii ) Submission to or rejection of the conduct or communication by an individual is used as a factor in decisions affecting the individual's employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing. ( iii ) The conduct or communication has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's employment, public accommodations or public services, education, or housing, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive employment, public accommodations, public services, educational, or housing environment. [ MCL 37.2103(i).]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 Mich. App. 479 - John Does 11-18 v. Department of Corrections

3. “whether Wayne County and its sheriff's department may be held vicariously liable for a civil rights claim under MCL 37.2103(i) based on a criminal act of a deputy sheriff committed during working hours but plainly beyond the scope of his employment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 323 Mich. App. 479 - John Does 11-18 v. Department of Corrections