McCann v. Tillman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate ·

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

1. “(1) [s]he belongs to a protected group; (2) that [s]he has been subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) that the harassment must have been based on a protected characteristic of the employee ...; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer is responsible for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 595 F. App'x 921 - Reginald D. Marable, Sr. v. Marion Military Institute · 653 F. Supp. 2d 1349 - Seldon v. TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC.

2. “To establish a hostile work environment claim, McCann must show: “(1) that [s]he belongs to a protected group; (2) that [s]he has been subject to unwel come harassment; (3) that the harassment must have been based on a protected characteristic of the employee ...; (4) that the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; and (5) that the employer is responsible for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability.” Miller v. Ken-worth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir.2002). Determining whether the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive involves “both an objective and subjective component.” Id. at 1276 . In determining the objective element, a court looks to “ ‘all the circumstances,’ including ‘the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee’s work performance.’ ” [National R.R. Passenger Corp. v.] Morgan, 536 U.S. [101] at 116, 122 S.Ct. 2061 [, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) ] (quoting Harris [v. Forklift Systems, Inc.], 510 U.S. [17] at 23, 114 S.Ct. 367 [, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993) ]); see also Miller, 277 F.3d at 1275 . McCann alleges she was subject to a hostile work environment where white employees made derogatory racial comments about blacks, harsher discipline was received”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 929 F. Supp. 2d 1215 - King v. Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distribution Co.

3. “The third element requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that “the decisionmaker[s] [were] aware of the protected conduct, and that the protected .activity and the adverse action were not wholly unrelated.” Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571 , 590 (11th Cir.2000) (alterations in original) (quotations omitted); see also Griffin v. GTE Fla., Inc., 182 F.3d 1279 , 1284 (11th Cir.1999) (“At a minimum, [a plaintiff] must show that the adverse act‘followed the protected conduct; this minimum proof stems from the important requirement that the employer was actually aware of the protected expression at the time it took adverse employment action.”) (quotations omitted). We have found that “ ‘close temporal proximity’ may be sufficient to show that the protected activity and the adverse action were not ‘wholly unrelated.’ ” Gupta, 212 F.3d at 590 (quoting Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322 , 1337 (11th Cir.1999)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 912 F. Supp. 2d 1273 - Clark v. APAC Mid-South, Inc.