Hoyle v. Freightliner, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
650 F.3d 321 · 2011
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 19 district · 2 state decisions
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. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the surprise to the party against whom the evidence would be offered; (2) the ability of that party to cure the surprise; (3) the extent to which allowing the evidence would disrupt the trial; (4) the importance of the evidence; and (5) the nondisclosing party’s explanation for its failure to disclose the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The district court failed to recognize that a reasonable juror could reasonably find that, taken together, the various incidents and displays ‘that consistently painted women in a sexually subservient and demeaning light were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [the plaintiffs] employment and to create an abusive work environment.’ ... [T]he evidence might well persuade a reasonable juror that in the aggregate, the incidents and displays would have been objectively abusive to a reasonable person in Hoyle’s position. Furthermore, the district court’s consideration that the conduct of Hoyle’s co-workers was “not physically threatening,” while certainly an appropriate factor in assessing a plaintiffs evidence, is not controlling. Actionable harassment can be severe and/or pervasive without being physically threatening, e.g., where it is humiliating and demeaning. In sum, the evidence marshaled by Hoyle was sufficient to generate a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the abusive aspects of her work environment were severe or pervasive.”
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.