Castleberry v. STI Group’s Empirical Analysis
863 F.3d 259 · 2017
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Faragher v. City of Boca Raton · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the employee suffered intentional discrimination because of his/her [race], 2) the discrimination was severe or pervasive, 3) the discrimination detrimentally affected the plaintiff, 4) the discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person in like circumstances, and 5) the existence of respondeat superior liability. ...”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a court must examine the totality of circumstances, such as 'the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with [a student's] performance.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[S]everity' and 'pervasiveness' are alternative possibilities: some harassment may be severe enough to contaminate an environment even if not pervasive; other, less objectionable, conduct will contaminate the workplace only if it is pervasive,”
2 later decisions 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.