Hazel v. U.S. Postmaster General’s Empirical Analysis
7 F.3d 1 · 1993
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 39 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Frazier v. Fairhaven School Committee (2002), Fennell v. First Step Designs, Ltd. (1996)
16 federal appellate · 39 district ·
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 Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Cumpiano v. Banco Santander Puerto Rico · Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he right to oppose discrimination is not a right to refuse to work on account of discrimination .... [A] plaintiff goes beyond the scope of protected opposition when he damages the basic goals and interests of the employer, who has a legitimate interest in seeing that its employees perform their work well.” Hazel v. U.S. Postmaster Gen., 7 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.1993). The reprimand notes that gathering the bags was”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sefiane also requested that Cowden and then Samuelson conduct an investigation. He even provided Cowden with a list of witnesses in order to aid in an investigation. Wal-Mart has provided no support for a finding that these actions were insufficient or in any way unreasonable. I recommend, therefore, that Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's harassment claim be denied. 3. Retaliation In order to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, the plaintiff must show that:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The issue of retaliatory motive ... presents 'a pure question of fact,' and the trial court's determination is reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.”
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.