Daka, Inc. v. Breiner’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
19 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably District Cablevision Limited Partnership v. Bassin (2003), Lively v. Flexible Packaging Ass'n (2003)
19 district · 30 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. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that [he] is a member of a protected class, (2) that [he] has been subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) that the harassment was based on membership in the protected class, and (4) that harassment is severe and pervasive enough to affect a term, condition[,] or privilege of employment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A] plaintiff has an actionable hostile work environment claim ... when the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult ... that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““More than a few isolated incidents must have occurred, and genuinely trivial occurrences will not establish a prima facie case.” [ Best, supra, 484 A.2d] at 980 (citations and footnote omitted.) However, “no specific number of incidences, and no specific level of egregiousness” need be proved. Id. [at 980-81]. This means that in determining whether the DCHRA has been violated, the trier of fact should consider ... the amount and nature of the conduct, the plaintiffs response to such conduct, and the relationship between the harassing party and the plaintiff.” Id. at 981 . Lively, 830 A.2d at 888 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.