Barnes v. Small’s Empirical Analysis
840 F.2d 972 · 1988
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 37 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Gafford v. General Electric Co. (1993), Stella v. Mineta (2002)
24 federal appellate · 37 district · 6 state decisions
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 (§ 717 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) · 5 U.S.C. § 2302 · 5 U.S.C. § 7101 · 5 U.S.C. § 7102 · 5 U.S.C. § 7105 · 5 U.S.C. § 7116 · 5 U.S.C. § 7513
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“arbitrary or capricious, obtained without compliance with lawful procedures, unsupported by substantial evidence[,] or otherwise not in accordance with law,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Furey v. Mnuchin · Grant v. Mnuchin“It is now settled law that the government “may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378, 382 , 107 S.Ct. 2891, 2896 , 97 L.Ed.2d 315 (1987). Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968) requires courts to balance the employee’s interest in speaking on matters of public concern against the government’s interest, as an employer, in efficient operations. Not all employee speech implicates the First Amendment to the same degree, however. Before engaging in the Pickering balancing test, a court must find, as a threshold matter, that the employee’s speech addresses a matter of “public concern.” Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. at 382-84 , 107 S.Ct. at 2896-97 ; Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146 , 103 S.Ct. 1684, 1689 , 75 L.Ed.2d 708 ; Am. Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Serv., 830 F.2d 294 , 300 (D.C.Cir.1987). For, “[w]hen employee expression cannot be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community, government officials should enjoy wide latitude in managing their offices, without intrusive oversight by the judiciary in the name of the First Amendment.” Connick, 461 U.S. at 146 , 103 S.Ct. at 1690 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To presume that all matters which transpire within a government office are of public concern would mean that virtually every remark—and certainly every criticism directed at a public official—would plant the seed of a constitutional case. While as a matter of good judgment, public officials should be receptive to constructive criticism offered by then-employees, the First Amendment does not require a public office to be run as a roundtable for employee complaints over internal office affairs.”
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.