Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. Marx, 518 U.S. 1019 (1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Schnuck Markets, Inc. v. Marx, 518 U.S. 1019 (1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
48 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 10 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc. (ca10, 1997-08-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Conner v. Schnuck Markets, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
See e.g., Durham v. Xerox Corp., 18 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 819 , 115 S.Ct. 80 , 130 L.Ed.2d 33 (1994) (granting summary judgment even after plaintiff had established a prima facie case of race discrimination on the grounds that plaintiff had “not offered sufficient evidence to support a finding that [defendant’s] stated reason was a pretext for discrimination.”); Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d 441 , 451 & n. 14 (10th Cir.1995) (explaining that “it [is] ... the plaintiffs burden to show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the empl…
discussed Cited "see" Hysten v. Burlington Northern and Santa Fe R. Co.
D. Kan. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 76 F.3d 324 (10th Cir.1996) (holding close temporal link between protected activity and adverse employment action is enough to preclude summary judgment on a retaliation claim), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1019 , 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996).
cited Cited "see" Butler v. City of Prairie Village, Kansas
10th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 329 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1019 , 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996); Love v. Re/Max of Am., Inc., 738 F.2d 383, 386 (10th Cir.1984).
cited Cited "see" Butler v. City of Prairie Village
10th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 329 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1019 , 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996); Love v. Re/Max of Am., Inc., 738 F.2d 383, 386 (10th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited "see" Benedict A. Wooten v. Department of Treasury
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 329 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1019 , 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996). 39 Appellant argues that appellee retaliated against him for his December 21, 1989 memorandum to Mr. Souza complaining of discrimination.
cited Cited "see" Ewing v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
D.N.M. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Schnuck Mkts., Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 327-28 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 518 U.S. 1019 , 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Hansen v. Alta Ski Lift Co.
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 329 (10th Cir.) (noting that pattern of alleged retaliation began with plaintiff being "written up"), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1019 , 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Butler v. City of Prairie Village
D. Kan. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 76 F.3d 324 (10th Cir.1996) (holding close temporal link between protected activity and adverse employment action is enough to preclude summary judgment on a retaliation claim), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Fortner v. State of Kansas
D. Kan. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 , 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2749 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); see Ingels v. Thiokol Corp., 42 F.3d at 621 . “ ‘At the summary judgment stage, it then becomes the plaintiffs burden to show that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the employer’s proffered reason for the challenged action is pretextual — i.e. unworthy of belief.’” Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 327 (10th Cir.1996) (quoting Randle v. City of Aurora, 69 F.3d at 451), petition for cert. denied, — U.S.-, 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Frances Turner v. Reynolds Ford, Inc. Tom McKee an Individual
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Ramirez v. Oklahoma Dep't of Mental Health, 41 F.3d 584 , 596 (10th Cir.1994) (holding evidence of adverse employment actions a month and a half after engaging in protected activity to be circumstantial evidence of retaliation); see also Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc. 76 F.3d 324, 326, 329 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 518 U.S. 1019 , 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1996); Burrus, 683 F.2d at 343 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Huddleston v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
D. Kan. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
In establishing a causal connection, plaintiff may offer “evidence of circumstances that justify an inference of retaliatory motive, such as protected conduct closely followed by adverse action.” Burrus, 683 F.2d at 343 ; see also Marx v. Schnuck Markets, Inc., 76 F.3d 324, 329 (10th Cir.1996), cert. denied — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 2552 , 135 L.Ed.2d 1071 , (in FLSA retaliation claim, “protected conduct closely followed by adverse action may justify an inference of retaliatory motive”) (citing Love v. RE/MAX of Am., Inc., 738 F.2d 383, 386 (10th Cir.1984)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Schnuck Markets, Inc.
v.
Marx
No. 95-1822.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 24, 1996.
518 U.S. 1019
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

C. A. 10th

Cir. Certiorari denied.