29 Fair Emplpraccas 1268 30 Empl Prac Dec P 33030’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 38 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably 36 Cal. 4th 1028 - Yanowitz v. L'OREAL USA, INC. (2005), 88 Cal. App. 4th 52 - Morgan v. Regents of the University of California (2000)
3 federal appellate · 38 district · 6 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters · County of Washington v. Gunther · Womack v. Munson
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“17. “The order and allocation of proof for Title VII suits set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, is applicable to actions for unlawful retaliation under this section. ... The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing that she engaged in a protected activity, that she was thereafter subjected by her employer to adverse employment action, and that a causal link exists between the two. ... To show the requisite causal link, the plaintiff must present evidence sufficient to raise the inference that her protected activity was the likely reason for the adverse action. Essential to a causal link is evidence that the employer was aware that the plaintiff had engaged in the protected activity. ... ” (citations omitted).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees ... because [the employee] has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this [title], or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this [title].”
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.