Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
711 F.3d 401 · 2013
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Lawrence v. Texas · Edwards v. City of Goldsboro · Evans v. Technologies Applications & Service Co. · Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. · Bowman v. State Bank of Keysville
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In determining what claims a plaintiff properly alleged before the EEOC, we may look only to the charge filed with that agency.” Id. Therefore, the Court will look only to the charge filed with the EEOC (and nearly identical ARCO charge) in determining the scope of Plaintiffs claims. . Plaintiff also argues that the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[After an EEOC complaint, in] any subsequent lawsuit alleging unlawful employment practices under Title VII, a federal court may only consider those allegations included in the EEOC charge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“it brings the charged party before the EEOC and permits effectuation of the [ADA]'s primary goal, the securing of voluntary compliance with the law.”
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.