Lima v. Addeco’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Western World Insurance v. Stack Oil, Inc. · Jeffreys v. The City of New York
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[C]ourts have found that even when a plaintiff establishes an entity's status as part of a joint employer, the plaintiff must still show that the joint employer knew or should have known of the [discriminatory] conduct and failed to take corrective measures within its control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Popat v. Levy“Even where two companies are deemed a joint employer, however, it is not necessarily the case that both are liable for discriminatory conduct in violation of Title VII.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Popat v. Levy“(1) interrelation of operations, (2) centralized control of labor relations, (3) common management, and (4) common ownership or financial support.”
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.