Filer v. Donley’s Empirical Analysis
690 F.3d 643 · 2012
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Feres v. United States · Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co. · Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc. · Pacheco v. Mineta
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Ordinarily, an employee may not base a Title VII claim on an action that was not previously asserted in a formal charge of discrimination to the EEOC, or that could not “reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” [Pacheco v. Mineta, 448 F.3d 783, 789 (5th Cir.2006)] (quoting Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 466 (5th Cir.1970)). The purpose of this exhaustion doctrine is to facilitate the administrative agency’s investigation and conciliatory functions and to recognize its role as primary enforcer of anti-discrimination laws. In hostile work environment claims, however, if one act alleged to have created the hostile environment is timely exhausted, “a court may consider -‘the entire scope of the hostile work environment claim:’ ” Stewart v. Miss. Transp. Comm’n, 586 F.3d 321, 328 (5th Cir.2009) (quoting Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 105 , 122 S.Ct. 2061, 2068 , 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002)). To apply this “continuing violation doctrine ... the plaintiff must demonstrate that the separate acts are related.” Id.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a]n employee may not base a Title VII claim on an action that was not previously asserted in a formal charge of discrimination to the EEOC, or that could not 'reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.