green
Positive treatment
5.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Hospital De Damas, Inc.
Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 245 , 79 S.Ct. 773, 780 , 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959); accord Chaulk Serv., Inc. v. Mass. Comm’n Against Discrimination, 70 F.3d 1361, 1364 (1st Cir.1995) (citing Garmon), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1005 , 116 S.Ct. 2525 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1996). 3 This doctrine is known as Garmon preemption or the Gar-mon rule.
cited
Cited "see"
Audiotext Communications Network, Inc. v. U.S. Telecom, Inc.
See Patton v. TIC United Corp., 77 F.3d 1235, 1241 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1005 , 116 S.Ct. 2525 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Valentin v. Crozer-Chester Medical Center
See Gomez v. Allegheny Health Servs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083 (3d Cir.1995), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1005 , 116 S.Ct. 2524 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1996); Roebuck v. Drexel Univ., 852 F.2d 715, 726-27 (3d Cir.1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
74 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1761, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1158 Linda S. Walden James P. Murphy George C. Poirier v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. Virgil H. Gardner Michael A. Vidan Howard Schutte David M. Watson Curt Riggin Robert Lindsey James R. Hurd Felmer Cummins George Foster Rich Moody John Doe Jane Doe
See id. at 1085; see also Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 546 (3d Cir.1992)(arguing that to allow a series of stray remarks over a five year period to suffice to prove discriminatory motive would be to overstep the limits of Title VII). 66 The statements made by Woodham and Fuller in the present case fall within the category of stray remarks by non-decisionmakers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Walden v. Georgia-Pacific Corp.
See id. at 1085; see also Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 546 (3d Cir.1992)(arguing that to allow a series of, stray remarks over a five year period to suffice to prove discriminatory motive would be to overstep the limits of Title VII).
discussed
Cited "see"
Fucci v. Graduate Hospital
See Gomez v. Allegheny Health Serv., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1085 (3d Cir.1995) (discriminatory statements by non-decisionmaker insufficient to support inference of discrimination by employer), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2524 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1996); Armbruster v. Unisys Corp., 32 F.3d 768, 779 (3d Cir.1994) (discriminatory statement by non-decisionmaker “several months” before challenged transfers began insufficient); Armbruster v. Unisys Corp., 914 F.Supp. 1153, 1156-57 (E.D.Pa.1996) (discriminatory statement must be connected to motive of decisionmaker); Selby, 784 F.Supp. at 757…
discussed
Cited "see"
Francis J. Kelly v. Drexel University
(2×)
Dist. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm'n, 77 Pa.Cmwlth. 594 , 466 A.2d 760, 763 (1983), its courts nevertheless generally interpret the PHRA in accord with its federal counterparts; see Gomez v. Allegheny Health Servs., Inc., 71 F.3d 1079, 1083-84 (3d Cir.1995) (noting that PHRA and Title VII are interpreted similarly), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 2524 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1996); Chmill v. City of Pittsburgh, 488 Pa. 470 , 412 A.2d 860, 871 (1980) (recognizing precedents suggesting that "the Human Relations Act should be construed in light of 'principles of fair employment law wh…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ricky L. Hampshire
See Patton v. TIC United Corp., 77 F.3d 1235, 1243 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2525 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillips v. Holladay Property Services, Inc.
See Fischbach v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“It is not enough for the plaintiff to show that a reason given for a job action is not just, or fair, or sensible.”) (quoting Pignato v. American Trans Air, Inc., 14 F.3d 342, 349 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 2675 , 129 L.Ed.2d 810 (1994)); accord Gomez v. Allegheny Health Services, 71 F.3d 1079, 1086 (3d Cir.1995) (“Title VII does not require employers to treat all employees fairly ... the law limits its protection against that un *39 fairness to cases of invidious illega…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Babcock & Wilcox Co.
v.
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (Matson Navigation Co., Inc., Real Parties in Interest)
v.
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (Matson Navigation Co., Inc., Real Parties in Interest)
No. 95-1666.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 17, 1996.
Published
Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist. Certiorari denied.