Serpe v. Four-Phase Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
718 F.2d 935 · 1983
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably Starrett v. Wadley (1989), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Farmer Bros. (1994)
16 federal appellate · 2 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 Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc. · Jenkins v. United Gas Corp. · 11 Fair empl.prac.cas. 872, 10 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,504 Sandra Lee Kaplan v. International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees and Motion Picture MacHine Operators of the United States and Canada, and Local 659, International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industries · Williams v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. · Cox v. United States Gypsum Co.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But, where there is a systematic policy of discrimination, the rule, with respect to employees who remain employed but claim that their status has been adversely affected by the discriminatory policy, is as follows: An employer charged with maintaining an unlawful transfer system, for example, may argue that the plaintiff did not apply for a transfer within the statutory time limits preceding the filing and therefore has no cause for complaint. This issue is often resolved by theorizing that a challenge to systematic discrimination is always timely if brought by a present employee, for the existence of the system deters the employee from seeking his full employment rights or threatens to adversely affect him in the future.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an investigation of the charges made in the [FEHA complaint] would have revealed the basis for that claim,”
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.