Gary v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 1391 · 1995
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 139 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 260 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998)
46 federal appellate · 139 district · 14 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 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Busby v. City of Orlando · Miller v. Maxwell's International Inc.
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 260 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[[liability is based upon the fact that the agent’s position facilitates the consummation of the [tort], in that from the point of view of the third person the transaction seems regular on its face and the agent appears to be acting in the ordinary course of the business confided to him. See Restatement § 219, comment e (citing § 261 in discussion of § 219(2)(d)).”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he obvious purpose of this [agent] provision was to incorporate respondeat superior liability into the statute”) (brackets in original). Accord Gary v. Long, 59 F.3d 1391, 1399 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“[W]hile a supervisory employee may be joined as a party defendant in a Title VII action, that employee must be viewed as being sued in his capacity as the agent of the employer, who is alone liable for a violation of Title VII”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1011 , 116 S.Ct. 569 , 133 L.Ed.2d 493 (1995); EEOC v. AIC Sec. Investigations, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276 , 1281 (7th Cir.1995) (”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'' 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1). We have repeatedly made clear that although the statute mentions specific employment decisions with immediate consequences, the scope of the prohibition”
4 later decisions 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.