Wagner v. Nutrasweet Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 251 (Employee Commuting Flexibility Act of 1996) · 29 U.S.C. § 262 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Landgraf v. USI Film Products · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Whether Wagner was terminated on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when Wayne Tompkins, Wagner’s male subordinate, assumed a position as Director, Human Resources, of the R & D Group, in late July 1991— approximately three months after Wagner signed a Separation Agreement (which contained a general release of all claims arising on or before March 25, 1991). 2. Whether Wagner was terminated on the basis of her sex in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., when NutraSweet’s Vice President, Joe Clark, refused to consider her for a director position in the Carbonated Soft Drink/Táble Top (“CSD”) Group, which was ultimately filled by a male, Mike Vinitsky. 3. Whether Wagner was discriminated against with respect to her compensation during her retention period which ran from March 30,1991 through October 5, 1991, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206 (d), and Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.”
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.