810 F. Supp. 2d 251 - Bergbauer v. Mabus’s Empirical Analysis
2011
Citation profile
3 district ·
Relationships
Applies 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)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“While the Secretary is correct that EEOC regulations require Title VII complainants to make EEO-counselor contact within 45 days of' any allegedly discriminatory or retaliatory act, the purpose served by EEO contact is also served where a complainant brings such acts to the attention of a supervisor. Lloyd v. Chao, 240 F.Supp.2d 1, 3-4 (D.D.C.2002). Ms. Bergbauer brought Mr. Towner’s inappropriate comments to the attention of her supervisor (Alan Weyman) on April 22, 2008, Am. Compl. [34-1] ¶¶ 27, 28, and so her complaint as to that alleged misconduct was timely. Furthermore, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Morgan , since that act was timely exhausted, the Secretary faces potential liability as to all other acts, even outside the filing period, so long as they constitute the same unlaw'ful employment practice. 536 U.S. at 122 , 122 S.Ct. 2061 . Therefore, while the incident in San Diego in February 2008 took place well outside the 45-day limit for EEO counselor contact, so long as that event is part of the same unlawful employment practice as subsequent acts of sexual harassment, the Secretary may be liable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the same set of facts supports a Title VII claim and a non-Title VII claim against a federal employer, the Title VII claim preempts the non-Title VII claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coulibaly v. Pompeo
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.