Romain v. Kurek’s Empirical Analysis
836 F.2d 241 · 1987
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Johnson v. Palma (1991), Haskell v. Washington Township (1988)
14 federal appellate · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · First Investment Annuity Co. of America v. Miller · Enmund v. Florida · Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers' Local Union No. 130 · Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [W]hether the role of the unnamed party could through reasonable effort ,by the complainant be ascertained at the time of the filing of the EEOC complaint; (2) [W]hether, under the circumstances, the interests of a named [party] are so similar as the unnamed party’s that for the purpose of obtaining voluntary conciliation and compliance it would be unnecessary to include the unnamed party in the EEOC proceedings; (3) [WJhether its absence from the EEOC proceedings resulted in actual prejudice to the interests of the unnamed party; and (4) [WJhether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [W]hether the role of the unnamed party could through reasonable effort by the complainant be ascertained at the time of the filing of the EEOC complaint; (2) [WJhether, under the circumstances, the interests of a named [sic] are so similar as [sic] the unnamed party’s that for the purpose of obtaining voluntary conciliation and compliance it would be unnecessary to include the unnamed party in the EEOC proceedings; (3) [W]hether its absence from the EEOC proceedings resulted in actual prejudice to the interests of the unnamed party; (4) [Wjhether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The 'identity of interest' exception acknowledges the reality that laymen, unassisted by trained lawyers, initiate the process of filing a charge with the EEOC, and accordingly prevents frustration of the remedial goals of Title VII by not requiring procedural exactness in stating the charge.”
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.