Johnson v. Ballard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “In establishing the applicability of Title VII to State and local employees, the Committee wishes to emphasize that the individual’s right to file a civil action in his own behalf, pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1870 and 1871, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, is in no way affected. During the floor debate surrounding the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it was made clear that the Act was not intended to preempt existing rights under the National Labor Relations Act or the Railway Labor Act. Title VII was envisioned as an independent statutory authority meant to provide an aggrieved individual with an additional remedy to redress employment discrimination____ [T]he remedies available to the individual under Title VII are co-extensive with the individual’s right to sue under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , and that the two procedures augment each other and are not mutually exclusive. The bill, therefore, by extending jurisdiction to State and local government employees does not affect existing rights that such individuals have already been granted by previous legislation____ Inclusion of State and local employees among those enjoying the protection of Title VII provides an alternate administrative remedy to the existing prohibition against discrimination perpetuated “under color of state law” as embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 652 F. Supp. 477 - Ring Ex Rel. Copelan v. Crisp County Hospital Authority

2. “[P]laintiffs allege several violations of their constitutional rights. Although these rights may overlap with plaintiffs Title VII rights, they are not newly created by Title VII. The court notes that in this jurisdiction, courts have allowed plaintiffs to state separate causes of action under both Title VII and § 1983.... [I]n this jurisdiction, like in the Fifth Circuit, a plaintiff may ‘elect to bring suit under as many applicable civil rights statutes as the fact of his case permit irrespective of the actual or potential overlap of statutory remedies.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baumgardner v. County of Cook

3. “'it would be anomalous to hold that when the only unlawful employment practice consists of the violation of a right created by Title VII, the plaintiff can bypass all of the administrative processes of Title VII and go directly into court under § 1983.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta