Rattigan v. Holder’s Empirical Analysis
643 F.3d 975 · 2011
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Department of the Navy v. Egan · Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“• “[T]he grant of security clearance to a particular employee ... is committed by law to the appropriate agency of the Executive Branch.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 527 , 108 S.Ct. 818 . • “[Cjertain civilian agencies ... were entrusted with ... protecting ... information bearing on national security.” Id. at 527-28 , 108 S.Ct. 818 . • “Presidents ... have sought to protect sensitive information ... by delegating this responsibility to the heads of agencies.” Id. at 528 , 108 S.Ct. 818 . • “Certainly, it is not reasonably possible for an outside nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment and to decide whether the agency should have been able to make the necessary affirmative prediction with confidence.” Id. at 529 , 108 S.Ct. 818 . • “[A]n agency head ... should have the final say in deciding whether to repose his trust in an employee who has access to [classified] information.” Id. (citation omitted). • “[T]he Senate and House Committees ... gave no indication that an agency’s security-clearance determination was now to be subject to review.” Id. at 531 n. 6, 108 S.Ct. 818 . • “Placing the burden on the Government” would involve “second-guessing the agency’s national security determinations.” Id. at 531 , 108 S.Ct. 818 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Predictive judgment of this kind must be made by those with the necessary expertise in protecting classified information. For reasons too obvious to call for enlarged discussion, the protection of classified information must be committed to the broad discretion of the agency responsible, and this must include broad discretion to determine who may have access to it. Certainly, it is not reasonably possible for an outside nonexpert body to review the substance of such a judgment and to decide whether the agency should have been able to make the necessary affirmative prediction with confidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The question, then, is whether we must bar reporting and referral claims altogether, as the government urges, or whether we can sufficiently minimize the chilling effect of Title VII liability by narrowing the scope, of such claims. We ask this question because it is our duty not only to follow Egan, but also to ‘preserv[e] to the maximum extent possible Title VU’s important protections against workplace discrimination and retaliation.’ ... Title VII claims based on knoioingly false reporting present no serious risk of chill, [so] we believe that claims of knowingly false security reports , or referrals can coexist with Egan....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.