Bruffett v. Warner Communications, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
692 F.2d 910 · 1982
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 14 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 144 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Stevenson v. Superior Court (1997), Clay v. Advanced Computer Applications, Inc. (1989)
35 federal appellate · 14 district · 18 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 660 (§ 11 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 49 U.S.C. § 20109 · 5 U.S.C. § 7513
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido · ITT Gilfillan v. Clayton · 85 Ill. 2d 124 - Palmateer v. International Harvester Co. · Geary v. United States Steel Corp.
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 144 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e are not free to follow our own inclinations as to the manner in which the common law should develop or to decide whether creation of a common law remedy for discrimination ... would be a wise and progressive social policy. We are instead constrained by the requirement that in diversity cases, “a federal court must be sensitive to the doctrinal trends of the state whose law it applies, and the policies which inform the prior adjudications by the state courts.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It may be granted that there are areas of an employee’s life in which his employer has no legitimate interest. An intrusion into one of these areas by virtue of the employer’s power of discharge might plausibly give rise to a cause of action, particularly where some recognized facet of public policy is threatened____ [However, we] hold only that where the Complaint itself discloses a plausible and legitimate reason for terminating an at-will employment relationship and no clear mandate of public policy is violated thereby, an employee at will has no right of action against his employer for wrongful discharge.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... procedure ... shall, when invoked, be exclusive and the final determination ... if ... [plaintiff] institutes any action ... without resorting to the procedure provided in this Act, [plaintiff] may not subsequently resort to the procedure herein .... ” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions 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.