Williams v. Wynne’s Empirical Analysis
533 F.3d 360 · 2008
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably In re Fema Trailer Formaldehyde Products Liability Litigation (2012), Martin v. Halliburton (2010)
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 10 U.S.C. § 10216 · 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 10 U.S.C. § 827 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 706 · 5 U.S.C. § 7703
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Feres v. United States · Greene v. McElroy · Chappell v. Wallace
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Title VII claims arising from an ART’s military status constitute an impermissible “intrusion into military personnel decisions.” Nothing in the legislative history of § 10216(a)(1)(B) suggests that Congress intended to intrude on such military personnel decisions. Adopting the rule implied by appellant’s distinction would create an absolute right of ARTs, as dual status employees, to assert Title VII claims against the Air Force, even for claims arising from events falling wholly within “the military sphere.” Section 10216(a) does not countenance this result, and based on [the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision in] Brown we reject it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bowers v. Wynne“a court may not reconsider what a claimant’s superiors did in the name of personnel management-demotions, determining performance level, reassignments to different jobs-because such decisions are integral to the military structure. Some of those decisions might on occasion be infected with the kinds of discrimination that Title VII seeks to correct, but in the military context the disruption of judicially examining each claim in each case has been held to undermine other important concerns.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wetherill v. Geren“IN GENERAL. — Military technicians are Federal civilian employees hired under title 5 and title 32 who are required to maintain dual-status as drilling reserve component members as a condition of their Federal civilian employment. Such employees shall be authorized and accounted for as a separate category of dual-status civilian employees, exempt as specified in subsection (b)(3) from any general or regulatory requirement for adjustments in Department of Defense civilian personnel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zuress v. Donley
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.