496 F. Supp. 2d 182 - Vance v. Chao’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
22 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]t this early stage of the proceedings, [the] plaintiff can meet her prima facie burden simply by alleging that the adverse actions were caused by her protected activity”
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.