811 F. Supp. 2d 128 - Mason v. Geithner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 district ·

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

1. “Where, as here, a plaintiff adopts a “kitchen sink” approach to crafting a hostile work environment claim, and when that approach is challenged, it is incumbent upon her to come forward with some explanation as to how her claim actually works under a hostile work environment theory. In this case, [plaintiff] has made no attempt — none— to crystallize for the Court how these disparate acts could be seen by a trier of fact as sufficiently related to coalesce into a single hostile work environment. When viewed in their totality, as [plaintiff] presses this Court to view them, the Court can only conclude that these acts are so different in kind and remote in time that they cannot possibly comprise part of the same hostile work environment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 924 F. Supp. 2d 141 - Dudley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

2. “Regardless of the possible strategic advantages that might flow from such an approach, it is well-established that this jurisdiction frowns on plaintiffs who attempt to bootstrap their alleged discrete acts of retaliation into a broader hostile work environment claim. The reason is simple: hostile work environments are by definition different because their very nature involves repeated conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 888 F. Supp. 2d 63 - Baird v. Snowbarger