Yates v. AVCO Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

819 F.2d 630 · 1987

Citation profile

244

cited by 244 later decisions

states following

February 2016

most recently cited

108 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 244 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc. (1996), Lehmann v. Toys 'R' US, Inc. (1993)

108 federal appellate · 8 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 13 states

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · General Electric Co. v. Gilbert

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

“requires an inquiry into both the objective feelings of an employee, and the intent of the employer. A constructive discharge exists if working conditions would have been so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Neely v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Company · Kenneth W. Jamison v. Ashtabula County Joint Vocational School
“some inquiry into the employer's intent and the reasonably foreseeable impact of its conduct on the employee.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Hugh R. Hall, Cross-Appellant v. Associated Doctors Health and Life Insurance Company, Cross-Appellee · 164 Ohio App. 3d 161 - Radcliff v. Steen Electric, Inc.
“[A]lthough Avco took remedial action once the plaintiffs registered complaints, its duty to remedy the problem, or at a minimum, inquire, was created earlier when the initial allegations of harassment [against other female employees] were reported.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Risinger v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation · Paroline v. Unisys Corp.

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.