Schafer v. Board of Public Education’s Empirical Analysis
903 F.2d 243 · 1990
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Gray, MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc. (1995)
11 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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 (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) whether 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) whether, under the circumstances, the interests of a named [party] are so similar [to] 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) whether its absence from the EEOC proceedings resulted in actual prejudice to the interests of the unnamed party; [and] 4) whether the unnamed party has in some way represented to the complainant that its relationship with the complainant is to be through the named party.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[e]quitable tolling may be appropriate if (1) the defendant has actively misled the plaintiff, (2) if the plaintiff has “in some extraordinary way” been prevented from asserting his rights, or, (3) if the plaintiff has timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walck v. Discavage“the conduct complained of would have the foreseeable result that working conditions would be so unpleasant or difficult that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would resign.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gray
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.