Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 746 F.2d 265 - Simmons v. Lyons

Simmons v. Lyons’s Empirical Analysis

746 F.2d 265 · 1984

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
May 2018
most recently cited

23 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Poe v. Haydon (1988), 41 Fair Emplpraccas 358 27 Wage & Hour Cas

23 federal appellate ·

3501984199020002010decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Henson v. City of Dundee · Dixson v. United States · Credithrift of America, Inc. v. United States

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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) Harassment on the basis of sex is a violation of Sec. 703 of Title VII. Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. (b) In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the Commission will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. The determination of the legality of a particular action will be made from the facts, on a case by case basis, [footnote omitted]”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) The employee belongs to a protected group, i.e., a simple stipulation that the employee is a man or a woman; (2) The employee was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, i.e., sexual advances, request for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome in the sense that it is unsolicited or unincited and is undesirable or offensive to the employee; (3) The harassment complained of was based upon sex, i.e., that but for the fact of her sex, the plaintiff would not have been the object of harassment; (4) The harassment complained of affected a “term, condition or privilege of employment, ” i.e., the sexual harassment must be sufficiently pervasive so as to al ter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment; (5) Respondent superior, i.e., that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment in question and failed to take prompt remedial action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the non-moving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
    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.