Sassaman v. Gamache’s Empirical Analysis
566 F.3d 307 · 2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Emmons v. City University of New York (2010), McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (2013)
1 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth · Terry v. Ashcroft
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that he belonged to a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for the position he held; (3) that he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discriminatory intent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n inference of discriminatory intent may be derived from a variety of circumstances, including, but not limited to ... the employer’s criticism of the plaintiffs performance in ethnically degrading terms; or its invidious comments about others in the employee’s protected group; or the more favorable treatment of employees not in the protected group; or the sequence of events leading to the [adverse action].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall. be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to discriminate against any individual with respect to [her] compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s ... sex.”
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.