Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 595 F.3d 679 - Turner v. Saloon, Ltd.

Turner v. Saloon, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

595 F.3d 679 · 2010

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
January 2025
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Illinois Northern District Court)

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 207 · 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (§ 3 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (§ 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (§ 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 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)

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan

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

  1. “consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim, including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period, is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability, so long as any act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period. * * * A hostile work environment claim is comprised of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one “unlawful employment practice.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The timely filing provision only requires that a Title VII plaintiff file a charge within a certain number of days after the unlawful practice happened. It does not matter, for purposes of the statute, that some of the component acts of the hostile work environment fall outside the statutory time period. Provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “present evidence of (1) a statutorily protected activity; (2) a materially adverse action taken by the employer; and (3) a causal connection between the two.”
    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.