Perez v. Dana Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Zipes held that an untimely EEOC filing does not per se create a bar to suit. It did not hold, as plaintiff contends, that an absolute failure to file any charge with the EEOC is excusable. To so hold would render the entire Title VII administrative framework a nullity and permit parties to completely avoid the “administrative pressure to reconcile their dispute. ” Bronze Shields, Inc. v. N.J. Department of Civil Service, 667 F.2d 1074, 1085 (3d Cir.1981). In the analogous notice requirement context of an action under the Longshoreman’s and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq., the Third Circuit recently held that, notwithstanding the Act’s humanitarian goals, courts may not rewrite the Act and make “what was intended to be a limitation no limitation at all.” Walker v. Sun Ship, Inc., 684 F.2d 266, 269 (3d Cir.1982), quoting, Pittsburg v. United Engineering Co., 342 U.S. 197, 200 , 72 S.Ct. 233 , 225, 96 L.Ed. 225 (1952). Because we conclude that we are similarly unable to rewrite Title VIPs mandate that a charge must be filed, we grant defendants’ motions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. District Council 47 v. Bradley