Gschwind v. Heiden’s Empirical Analysis
692 F.3d 844 · 2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust · New York Times Company v. United States · Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn · Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes · Cornfield Lewis v. Consolidated High School District No
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After the holding in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, that an employer’s [discretionary] policy ... can't be the subject of a class action ... it is easy to jump to the conclusion that such a policy cannot be the basis of an individual (as distinct from class action) suit against the employer, either. Easy, but wrong. Wal-Mart distinguishes between the lack of 'commonality' among the class members ... and the possibility that ... discretion ... can be the basis of Title VII liability.... Gschwind v. Heiden, 692 F.3d 844 , 848 (7th Cir.2012) (citation omitted) (quotations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tabor v. Hilti, Inc.
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.