DiPompo v. West Point Military Academy’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently December 2016
2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 791 · 29 U.S.C. § 793 · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 29 U.S.C. § 794A · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A claim of discrimination is reasonably related to an EEO charge if: a) a plaintiff presents it to the EEO office; or b) the EEO office investigates the claim; or c) the EEO office’s investigation of the original charge reasonably could be expected to encompass the claim. Almendral v. New York State Office of Mental Health, 743 F.2d 963, 967 (2d Cir.1984); Smith v. American President Lines, Ltd., 571 F.2d 102 , 107 n. 10 (2d Cir.1978) (citing cases); Grant v. Morgan Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y., 548 F.Supp. 1189, 1191 (S.D.N.Y.1982). Put differently, if the initial EEO charge did not apprise the defendant that the claim in question would be subject to the EEO office’s inquiry, then that claim is not reasonably related to the EEO charge. Fitch v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 678 F.Supp. 1046, 1049 (S.D.N.Y.1987); see also Stewart v. INS, 762 F.2d 193, 197-98 (2d Cir.1985); Kirkland v. Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 622 F.2d 1066, 1068 (2d Cir.1980) (per curiam).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The facts asserted by DiPompo in his second EEO complaint could have led the EEO officer to investigate DiPompo’s claim as a disparate impact claim, because DiPompo complained that the reading test, a neutral rule, operated to discriminate against him because of his dyslexia, a recognized handicap. Therefore, the fact that the EEO officer never considered whether DiPompo could state ‘a' claim for disparate impact discrimination does not mean that the claim is barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Accordingly DiPompo’s disparate treatment claim will be considered in this proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“first made laws against handicap discrimination part of the Title VII regulatory complex, an admittedly rigorous route for federal employees, and then made those substantive provisions irrelevant by giving handicapped federal employees a shortcut to federal court through Title VI.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rivera v. Heyman
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.