Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 629 FSUPP 636 - Mitchell v. OsAir, Inc.

Mitchell v. OsAir, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
May 1997
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Bailey v. Butcher · Henson v. City of Dundee · Bundy v. Jackson · Biscayne 21 Condominium, Inc. v. South Atlantic Financial Corp. · First National Bank v. Hirsch

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

  1. ““when a supervisor conditions the granting of an economic or other job benefit upon the receipt of sexual favors from a subordinate, or punishes that subordinate for refusing to comply.” It is the essence of quid pro quo harassment that the employee “was subjected] to unwelcome sexual advances by a supervisor ... and ... her reaction to these advances affected tangible aspects of ... her compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment....” In rebuttal, the defendant may show that the behavior complained of either did not take place or that it did not affect a tangible aspect of the plaintiffs employment. ...”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a supervisor confronted by a woman subordinate who refuses to tolerate a hostile working environment can alter working conditions in subtle ways which would probably not be recognized by a quid pro quo claim — by giving her less desirable assignments, worse evaluations of her performance, more heavy-handed treatment in the details of day-to-day employment.”
    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.