green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.4 score
“the distinction drawn by the company and adopted by the trial court between 'recall' and 'rehire' is at most legal fiction. we do not adopt this fiction.”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mills v. Cellco Partnership
there was testimony that comments and incidents occurred 'daily.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jackson v. Teamsters Local Union 922
the distinction drawn by the company and adopted by the trial court between 'recall' and 'rehire' is at most legal fiction. we do not adopt this fiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MATHEWS v. WALMART INC
Now, to be perfectly candid, the statement from Beverage Canners included “flagrant, revolting, and inflammatory” racial slurs that Reeves didn’t use, but to say that his comment isn’t nearly identical to the one from Beverage Canners may be a stretch too far. 897 F.2d at 1068, 1068 n.3.
cited
Cited "see"
Anderson v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.
See EEOC v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1069-71 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hudson v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.
See Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897, 904 (11th Cir.1982) (“the mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee ‘does not rise to a Title VII violation.’ For harassment to state a claim under Title VII, it must be sufficiently pervasive so as to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment.”) See also Edwards, 49 F.3d at 1521 (“[T]he racial slurs allegedly *1315 spoken by co-workers had to be so ‘commonplace, overt and denigrating that they created an atmosphere charged with racial hostility.’ �…
cited
Cited "see"
Haroldsen v. Omni Enterprises, Inc.
See E.E.O.C. v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1071 n. 9 (11th Cir.1990). 14 .
cited
Cited "see"
Gerald Eugene Stano v. Robert A. Butterworth, Harry K. Singletary
See Stano v. Dugger, 897 F.2d 1067 (11th Cir.1990). 112 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brenda E. Edwards v. Ambient Healthcare of Georgia, Inc.
See Fleming v. Boeing Co., 120 F.3d 242 , 245 (11th Cir. 1997) (holding that a hostile work environment occurs “[w]hen the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also EEOC v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1068, 1070 (11th Cir. 1990) (holding that employer discriminated against employees on basis of race where the plant manager and supervisor “frequent…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, Va.
Dep’t, 460 F.3d 361 , 374 (2d Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted); see also EEOC v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1071 (11th Cir.1990) (“Title VII applies equally to those with an existing employment relationship (on-the-job discrimination), those with a past employment relationship (laying-off and refusing to rehire pursuant to a rehiring plan) and those with no employment relationship at all (refusal to hire a new employee or a laid off employee with no right or expectation of being rehired).”); Sibley Mem’l Hosp. v. Wilson, 488 F.2d 1338, 1341 (D.C.Ci…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Thomas v. Dade County Public Health Trust
“If a plaintiff can provide direct evidence of discriminatory intent, then the employer must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the same employment decision would have been made in the absence of the discriminatory intent.” Standard, 161 F.3d at 1330 ; see also E.E.O.C. v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1071 (11th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lam v. University of Hawai'i
See, e.g., EEOC v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1072 (11th Cir.1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lam v. University of Hawai'i
See, e.g., EEOC v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1072 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nixon v. Runyon
See, e.g., EEOC v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1068, 1071-72 (11th Cir.1990) (finding that “flagrant, revolting, and insulting racially derogatory remarks” made towards black employees by a plant manager and supervisor were sufficient to show direct evidence of discrimination); Weatherspoon v. Andrews & Co., 33 Empl.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Williams v. Mead Coated Board, Inc.
The law is well settled that “only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of age [here race], constitute direct evidence of discrimination.” Carter v. City of Miami, 870 F.2d 578, 582 (11th Cir.1989); see, e.g., EEOC v. Beverage Canners, Inc., 897 F.2d 1067 , 1072 (11th Cir.1990) (“Blacks were so subjected to racially hostile *1571 remarks by managers and supervisors that the trial court found the atmosphere to be ‘charged with racial hostility’ ”); Bell v. Birmingham Linen Service, 715 F.2d 1552 (11th Cir.1983) (plaintiffs s…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gerald Eugene STANO, Petitioner-Appellant, Cross-Appellee,
v.
Richard L. DUGGER, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee, Cross-Appellant
v.
Richard L. DUGGER, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee, Cross-Appellant
88-3375.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 16, 1990.
Mark E. Olive, Georgia Resource Center, Inc., Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner-appellant, cross-appellee., Margene A. Roper, Belle Turner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, Fla., for respondent-appellee, cross-appellant.
Tjoflat, Fay, Kravitch, Johnson, Hatchett, Anderson, Clark, Edmondson, Cox.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
Citer courts: N.D. Alabama (1) · District of Columbia (1)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING IN BANC
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON, CLARK, EDMONDSON and COX, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT:A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the application for rehearing in banc and a majority of the judges of this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing in banc,
IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court in banc with oral argument during the week of June 11, 1990. The clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of in banc briefs. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.