Whalen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “In considering Kreseflcy, I stated: [Kresefky], again, rose [sic] in an age discrimination context. The Court, in that case, noted that Plaintiffs need not specifically state that their charge is being brought, on behalf of others similarly situated[;] instead, the charge need only to allege class issues that may subsequently form the basis for a Class Action, citing to the Whalen case. The Court also noted that, however, such notice is a prerequisite to a court Class Action. In the Kresefky case, as I said, I think there were four individual complaints filed, and in one of the complaints, the Plaintiff alleged that he was permanently laid off, due to downsizing, that. 14 employees were affected in his division, and that 10 were within the protected age group and had been terminated. The Court said that clearly these charges were not sufficient to put Defendants on notice of class claims against them. . The only — Kaplan, the only named Plaintiff, who even referred to other terminated employees, within a protected group, nonetheless, directed his charge solely, toward his own claims. The Court contrasted the Lusardi decision, and because Plaintiffs failed to notify Defendants of their potential class claims, in their EEOC charges, the Court would deny their request to proceed as a collective action on their age discrimination claims.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoffman v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc.

2. “The Court of Appeals [in Lusardi ], with sound reason, found that that charge clearly notified Xerox that it allegedly discriminated against persons over 40-years-old, as a class, and accordingly found that the charge provided sufficient notice to the parties to encourage meaningful conciliation, the purpose of requiring it. And that, to me, is the' touchstone of all of these cases that talk about whether the allegation of the administrative complaint is sufficient to allow a Class Action to be based upon that administrative complaint [ — ][t]hat the allegation would be such as to provide meaningful notice that there would be conciliation on a class basis, as opposed to conciliation-on an individual Plaintiff by Plaintiff basis. I think my reading of that is confirmed by the Third Circuit’s decision in the Lockhart case. In the Lockhart case, the EEOC charge stated that Westinghouse had terminated the Plaintiff from employment, on the basis of his age, and the Court said that’s not enough to provide the requisite notice to the Defendant of a class-based claim so that individual Plaintiffs could later piggyback onto the timely-filed complaint.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hoffman v. R.I. Enterprises, Inc.

3. “powers, remedies and procedures” of § 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ... which provides, in relevant part, that "[a]n action ... may be maintained against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself or themselves and other employees similarly situated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Branum v. United Parcel Service, Inc.