Nash v. Electrospace System, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
9 F.3d 401 · 1993
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably 7 Cal. 4th 1238 - Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (1994), Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co. (1994)
39 federal appellate · 2 district · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · In re Disbarment of Gonzales · Yamamoto v. United States · 41 Fair Emplpraccas 358 27 Wage & Hour Cas
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the plaintiff belongs to a protected class; (2) the plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on sex; (4) the harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of employment; and (5) the employer either knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the offender in [the Supreme Court case of] Harris [v. Forklift Systems, Inc., — U.S. —, 114 S.Ct. 367 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)] was the company president, the issue of respondeat superior liability never arose. This case poses a more typical situation, in which the alleged offender, though in some ways a direct supervisor of Nash’s work, was not responsible for the terms and conditions of her employment, for her work assignment within the company, or for hiring or firing decisions. The summary judgment record does not establish that anyone within the company hierarchy was aware of Nash’s complaints against Sharp until she went to the personnel department on February 22, 1991. The record also contains no evidence that Sharp’s conduct took place in public, under the eye of co-workers or supervisors, it thus appears that the company did not know nor should it have known of Sharp’s offensive inquisitiveness about Nash until she complained to those with authority to address the problem.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a company, once informed of allegations of sexual harassment, takes prompt remedial action to protect the claimant, the company may avoid Title VII liability.”
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.