Loe v. Heckler’s Empirical Analysis
768 F.2d 409 · 1985
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 45 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Bowden v. United States (1997), Park v. Howard University (1995)
20 federal appellate · 45 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 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 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)
Relies on Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Brown v. General Services Administration · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. · Constant 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Exhaustion is required in order to give federal agencies an opportunity to handle matters internally whenever possible and to ensure that the federal courts are burdened only when reasonably necessary. Congress wanted to give each agency “the opportunity as well as the responsibility to right any wrong that it might have done.” Congress never, however, wanted the exhaustion doctrine to become “a massive procedural roadblock to access to the courts.” Rather, “Congress contemplated that the exhaustion doctrine would be held within limits consonant with the realities of the statutory scheme.” ... This court has ... “stressed], in particular, that judges slight the legislature’s central command if they fail to recall that Title VII was devised as a measure that would be kept accessible to individuals untrained in negotiating procedural labyrinths.” The Loe court made it clear that adequacy of notice is the core of Title VII’s administrative exhaustion requirements, and that “the strictures of common law pleading have no place in a scheme largely dependent upon self-service in drawing up administrative charges.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An employee or applicant is authorized by [Title VII] to file a civil action in an appropriate United States district court ... [w]ithin thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of notice of final action taken by the agency on a complaint.... For purposes of this part, the decision of an agency shall be final only when the agency makes a determination on all of the issues in the complaint....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that an employee will receive bona fide consideration by the selecting official before any other candidate is referred for consideration and that the employee will not be considered in competition with other candidates and will not be compared with them.”
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.