Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 809 F. Supp. 2d 572 - King v. LIFE SCHOOL

809 F. Supp. 2d 572 - King v. LIFE SCHOOL’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
July 2016
most recently cited

Relationships

Applies 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 38 U.S.C. § 4301 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. · Kontrick v. Ryan

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

  1. “On or about June 21, 2011, I filed a sexual discrimination complaint with my employer against Jessica Menchaca, Hispanic female. Nothing has been said about the investigation and the witness I provided has been questioned twice about what she saw Ms. Menchaca doing. After complaining I was moved to another section and Ms. Menchaca was not. A male Hispanic had a sexual harassment charge filed against him and he has not been disciplined. On July 15, 2011,1 was given a Performance and Development Plan (DPD) [sic] because a female employee that no longer works there had filed a sexual harassment case against me. The ex-employee had stated that I asked her to touch me. I did not sexually harass the ex-employee or ask her to touch me, but the employer stated that their investigation concluded the conduct occurred. My employer would not say who conducted the investigation, how it was conducted, who was interviewed, or if it was done after the employee had already quit or got terminated. I believe that I am being retaliated against for my previous EEOC charges and my recent complaint of sexual harassment and am being treated disparately because of my race, White[,] in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended.”
    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.