Vickers v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
493 F.3d 186 · 2007
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 56 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms (2008), Baloch v. Kempthorne (2008)
10 federal appellate · 56 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 7701 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After the employer offers a non-discriminatory justification for its actions, the McDonnell Douglas framework falls away, and [the court] must determine whether a reasonable jury “could infer discrimination from the combination of (1) the plaintiffs prima facie case; (2) any evidence the plaintiff presents to attack the employer’s proffered explanation for its actions; and (3) any further evidence of discrimination that may be available to the plaintiff.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“offensive conduct 'permeate[s] [the workplace] with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment.' " Stewart , 275 F.3d at 1133 (quoting Barbour v. Browner , 181 F.3d 1342 , 1347-48 (D.C. Cir. 1999), and Oncale , 523 U.S. at 78 , 118 S.Ct. 998 ). In Baloch v. Kempthorne , the D.C. Circuit specifically held that "the totality of circumstances”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The] allegations were [not] so different in kind that, as a matter of law, we can conclude that they were not part of the same hostile work environment. • The line between [one supervisor] creating a hostile environment through sexual conduct and his deputy-turned successor ... perpetuating the environment by condoning the same is not so well-defined to say that the [supervisors’] acts have ‘no relation’ as required in Morgan.”
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.