Taylor v. Geithner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Where an adverse employment action occurs very close in time after an employer learns of a protected activity, such temporal proximity between the events is significant enough to constitute evidence of a causal connection for the purposes of satisfying a prima facie case of retaliation. But where some time elapses between when the employer learns of a protected activity and the subsequent adverse employment action, the employee must couple temporal proximity with other evidence of retaliatory conduct to establish causality.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Anthony Nicholson v. City of Clarksville · 986 F. Supp. 2d 904 - Kimbrough v. Cincinnati Ass'n for Blind

2. “1) [he] engaged in activity protected by Title VII; 2) this exercise of protected rights was known to defendant; 3) defendant thereafter took adverse employment action against the plaintiff, or the plaintiff was subjected to severe or pervasive retaliatory harassment by the supervisor; and 4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action or harassment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Way v. Shawnee Township

3. “if there is a very close temporal proximity, then no other evidence is needed”); Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 525 (6th Cir.2008) (”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eric Paasewe v. Action Group, Inc.