Goluszek v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Connecticut v. Teal · Vermont v. Cox · Liegl v. Webb
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The discrimination Congress was concerned about when it enacted Title VII is one stemming from an imbalance of power and1- an abuse of that imbalance by the powerful which results in discrimination against a discrete and vulnerable group. Note, Sexual Harassment Claims of Abusive Work Environment Under Title VII, 97 Harv. L.Rev. 1449 , 1451-52 (1984). Title VII does not make all forms of harassment actionable, nor does it even make all forms of verbal- harassment with sexual overtones actionable. The “sexual harassment” that is actionable under Title VII “is the exploitation of a powerful position to impose sexual demands or pressures on an unwilling but less powerful person.” Id. at 1451 . Actionable sexual harassment fosters a sense of degradation in the victim by attacking their [sic] sexuality. Id. at 1455 . In effect, the offender is saying by words or actions that the victim is inferior because of the victim’s sex. Cf. Scott v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 798 F.2d 210 , 213 (7th Cir.1986) (“Such severe harassment becomes discriminatory because it deprives the victim (usually female) of the right to participate in the workplace on equal footing with others similarly situated.”).”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“with women so that he might have sex, showed him pictures of nude women, accused him of being gay or bisexual, and poked him in the buttocks with a stick. The evidence suggested that although his employer took seriously allegations that a female employee had been harassed, its response to Goluszek's complaints was lackadaisical and ineffective. Nonetheless, the court concluded that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It shall be an unlawful practice for an employer — (1) to ... discriminate against any individual with respect to his ... sex____ [42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2.]”
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.