Woodard v. Lehman’s Empirical Analysis
717 F.2d 909 · 1983
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Tinsley v. First Union National Bank (1998), Nealon v. Stone (1992)
29 federal appellate · 13 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens · Delaware State College v. Ricks · Brown v. General Services Administration
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t is only when an actual violation has occurred within that requisite time period that under any possible circumstances the theory of continuing violation is sustainable.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Title VII filing period serves an important function in the statutory scheme: it protects potential defendants from perpetual liability for alleged violations of the law. Courts should not succumb to the temptation to grant relief in hard cases through the invocation of questionable legal doctrines to circumvent the filing requirement. Thus, after United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans [supra] the continuing violation theory may no longer be utilized when the plaintiff is unable to allege a present violation of the Act. Conclusory allegations that a violation continues should also no longer be sufficient. In addition, that a plaintiff suffers the effects of past discriminatory acts will not suffice to supply a viable cause of action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“The complainant brought to the attention of the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor the matter causing him to believe he had been discriminated against within 30 calendar days of the date of that matter, or, if a personnel action, within 30 calendar days of its effective date. The complainant or his representative submitted his written complaint to an appropriate official within 15 calendar days of the date of his final interview with the Equal Opportunity Counselor.”
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.