green
Positive treatment
1.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Scheidecker v. Arvig Enterprises, Inc.
See Vemey v. Dodaro, 872 F.Supp. 188, 193 (M.D.Pa.1995), affd, 79 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir.1996); Renaldi v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co., 954 F.Supp. 614, 620 (W.D.N.Y.1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Renaldi v. Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co.
See Maresco, 964 F.2d at 115 (dismissing a disparate-impact claim where the plaintiff’s “facially neutral employment practice ... coalesces with the discharge which he claims to have constituted disparate treatment”); see also Verney v. Dodaro, 872 F.Supp. 188, 193 (M.D.Pa.1995) (describing as “nonsensical” plaintiffs contention that her employer’s alleged policy of intentionally discriminating against women caused a disparate impact on women), aff'd, 79 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hunt v. Tektronix, Inc.
See Maresco, 964 F.2d at 115 (dismissing a disparate impact claim where the plaintiffs “facially neutral employment practice ... coalesces with the discharge which he claims to have constituted disparate treatment”); see also Verney v. Dodaro, 872 F.Supp. 188, 193 (M.D.Pa.1995) (where court found “nonsensical” plaintiffs contention that her employer’s alleged policy of intentionally discriminating against women caused a disparate impact on women), aff'd, 79 F.3d 1140 (3d Cir.1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Christine Willis
v.
Christine Willis
95-5165.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 6, 1996.
Published
U.S.
v.
Christine Willis
NO. 95-5165
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
Feb 06, 1996
Appeal From: D.N.J., No. 94-00280-02
1
AFFIRMED.