63 Cal. App. 4th 1128 - Weeks v. Baker & McKenzie’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 1122 - Ketchum v. Moses (2001), 20 Cal. 4th 701 - People v. Welch (1999)
4 federal appellate · 82 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
Relies on Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air · 5 Cal. 3d 584 - Serrano v. Priest · 20 Cal. 3d 25 - Serrano v. Priest · 21 Cal. 3d 910 - Neal v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · 6 Cal. 3d 920 - Nestle v. City of Santa Monica
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an employee's failure to give such notice is not an affirmative defense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“by an employee other than an agent or supervisor " (italics added), the Legislature has indicated that all acts of harassment by a supervisor are to be exempted from the negligence standard, whether or not the supervisor was then acting as the employer's agent, and that agency principles come into play only when the harasser is not a supervisor. [3] To the extent the United States Supreme Court derived the Ellerth/Faragher defense from agency principles, therefore, its reasoning is not applicable to the FEHA. The legislative history of the FEHA's antiharassment provisions gives further support for our conclusion that an employer is strictly liable for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor. Documents in the legislative record show that section 12940, which contains the antiharassment provisions, and which was adopted in 1982 (Stats.1982, ch. 1193, § 2, pp. 4258-4260), was based in part on then existing federal regulations promulgated by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (See Assem. Com. on Labor and Employment, Conf. Com. Rep. on Assem. Bill No.1985 (1981-1982 Reg. Sess.) Aug. 20, 1982.) A conference committee report observed that "federal and state regulations make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, labor organization, or employment agency, or their agents or supervisors, to harass an applicant or an employee on a basis enumerated in the fair employment laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(a) If a person entitled to bring an action, mentioned in Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 335) is, at the time the cause of action accrued either under the age of majority or insane, the time of the disability is not part of the time limited for the commencement of the action. [¶] (b) This section does not apply to an action against a public entity or public employee upon a cause of action for which a claim is required to be presented in accordance with Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 900) or Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 910) of Part 3, or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 950) of Part 4, of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code. This subdivision shall not apply to any claim presented to a public entity prior to January 1, 1971.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.