Johnson v. Brock’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 219 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Waltman v. International Paper Co. (1989), Kenneth L. Cones, v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health & Human Services, (2000)
13 federal appellate · 10 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 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Langnes v. Green
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that she was considered for and denied the promotion.” Id. at 223 (emphasis added). Defendant argues that in this case, plaintiff was never considered for the WS-15 position, and that plaintiff thus cannot make out a prima facie case. There is nothing in Johnson to indicate that the Court of Appeals intended to place such weight on the phrase”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“merely by showing (1) she was a victim of a pattern of discrimination, and (2) she applied for and was denied a promotion for which she was technically eligible and of which she had a reasonable expectation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[a]lthough enjoining a defendant from further acts of discrimination is a typical remedy in Title VII cases, [the D.C. Circuit] has never held that it is a mandatory remedy ....”
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.