Abril-Rivera v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
795 F.3d 245 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 5174
Relies on Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Clark County School District v. Breeden · Robinson v. Shell Oil 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Fields’] main rationale for closure is that the' Agency no longer requires the large Spanish-language capacity it is carrying at the NPSC’s. Also, the overall need for personnel at the NPSC’s has lessened. Further, to the extent Spanish-language NPSC employees are needed, this can probably be accommodated at the other NPSC’s in Texas, Maryland and Virginia. Lastly, the lease for the Puerto Rico NPSC is about to expire-so that’s why she’s thinking through these issues now.... The last big Puerto Rico disaster requiring a large capacity of Spanish-language employees in the NPSC’s was Hurricane Georges in 1998. Since that time the need for Spanish-language personnel at the NPSC’s has been steadily declining. Essentially, the Agency has been carrying a large Spanish-language capacity at the NPSC’s for some time at a level that’s greater than needed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“facts” which they contend “are sufficient to establish a pattern which creates a controversy of material facts and rebuts FEMA’s proffered reasons, which were but a pretext for discrimination.” The dissent similarly focuses on the question of whether FEMA harbored a discriminatory intent and offered pretextual justifications for its actions. Plaintiffs' and the dissent’s focus on”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“to individually re-file their [pay] claims, which they did later on.” However, plaintiffs point to no evidence that the plaintiffs did in fact re-file any claims after May 2007. 2 . 29 C.F.R. § 1960.25 (c) requires annual inspections of federal workplaces”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.