green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
6.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Hostility from fellow employees, having tools stolen, and resulting anxiety, without more, do not constitute ultimate employment decisions, and therefore are not the required adverse employment actions.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“Ultimate employment decisions include acts such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Barton v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
hostility from fellow employees, having tools stolen, and resulting anxiety, without more, do not constitute ultimate employment decisions, and therefore are not the required adverse employment actions.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pfeil v. Intecom Telecommunications
ultimate employment decisions include acts such as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensating.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
MMAR Group, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
it goes without saying that the standard of review for rule 50 motions for judgment is found in boeing co. v. shipman, 411 f.2d 365 (5th cir.1969) (en bane).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wayne v. Dallas Morning News
Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 705-07 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 *584 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Brooks v. Firestone Polymers, LLC
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Beaumont v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Hill v. United States
See 4 F.3d at 551 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 931 , 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Walker v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Accord Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); Lucas v. Cheney, 821 F.Supp. 374, 376 (D.Md.1992) (holding that a letter of reprimand did not “represent an adverse employment action within the scope of Title VII”), aff'd, 991 F.2d 790 (4th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
Arthur Cutshall, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Don Sundquist, Govenor of the State of Tennessee, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
See Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Cleveland, 105 F.3d 1107, 1109 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Merriweather v. Alabama Department of Public Safety
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 708 (5th Cir.1997) (finding that plaintiffs reprimand for not being at the assigned work station was not actionable), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Halbert v. Yousif
See Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Cleveland, 105 F.3d 1107, 1109 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
Unger v. United States
See Martin v. United States 109 F.3d 1177, 1178 (7th Cir.1996) (“the sort of increase produced by a few levels’ difference in sentencing calculations cannot be raised indirectly on collateral 'attack by complaining about counsel’s work”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
cited
Cited "see"
Lowrey v. Texas a & M University System
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 705 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Renteria
See United States v. Eleno Aguirre, 108 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997);- United States v. Gallegos, 108 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 116 , 139 L.Ed.2d 68 (1997); United States v. Gabriel Rodriguez-Aguirre, et al. 108 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 132 , 139 L.Ed.2d 81 (1997); United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 1997); and United States v. Denogean, 79 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. --, 117 S.Ct…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Ruben Renteria, Sr., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. United States of America v. Ruben Renteria, Sr.
See United States v. Eleno Aguirre, 108 F.3d 1284 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); United States v. Gallegos, 108 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir.1997); United States v. Contreras, 108 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 116 , 139 L.Ed.2d 68 (1997); United States v. Gabriel Rodriguez-Aguirre, et al., 108 F.3d 1228 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 132 , 139 L.Ed.2d 81 (1997); United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir.1997); and United States v. Denogean, 79 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ---…
discussed
Cited "see"
Casey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.) (“Hostility from fellow employees, having tools stolen, and resulting anxiety, without more, do not constitute ultimate employment decisions, and therefore are not the required adverse employment actions.”) (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 968 F.2d 427 , 431 (5th Cir.1992), aff'd, 511 U.S. 244 , 114 S.Ct. 1483 , 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994)), cert. denied , — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re Bahara
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Gens v. Resolution Trust Corp., 112 F.3d 569, 576 (1st Cir.) (citing James A. White & Robert S. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code §§ 13-16 (3d Ed.1988)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); FDIC v. Blue Rock Shopping Ctr., Inc., 766 F.2d 744, 749 (3d Cir.1985) (“We agree with the Unum Court that 3-606 is meant to apply only to parties who act as sureties.
discussed
Cited "see"
Dupont-Lauren v. Schneider (USA), Inc.
See Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); Grimes, 102 F.3d at 140 ; Long v. Eastfield College, 88 F.3d 300, 304 (5th Cir.1996); Dollis, 77 F.3d at 781; see also Mayberry, 55 F.3d 1086 at 1092 ; Ray, 63 F.3d at 435 n. 22; Pierce v. Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, 37 F.3d 1146, 1151 (5th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1107 , 115 S.Ct. 1957 , 131 L.Ed.2d 849 (1995); Barrow v. New Orleans S.S.
discussed
Cited "see"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Union Camp Corp.
See Dollis v. Rubin, 77 F.3d 777, 779-82 (5th Cir.1995); accord Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that Title VII was designed to address only "ultimate” employment decisions such as hiring, granting leave, firing, promoting and compensating), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Despres v. City of San Antonio
See, e.g., Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
(2×)
See, e.g., Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.1997), ce rt. denied, 522 U.S. 932 , 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); Page v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 227, 233 (4th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 892 , 102 S.Ct. 388 , 70 L.Ed.2d 206 (1981) (holding that Title VII prohibits only “ultimate employment decisions” which are retaliatory and not “interlocutory or mediate decisions.”); see also Hopkins v. Baltimore Gas & Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. United States
Pursuant to § 2679(d)(2), upon certification by the Attorney General that a federal employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time an alleged tort took place, a state-court action “shall be removed” to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(2); see also Martinez v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 1 11 F.3d 1148, 1152 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 931 , 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997). 3 Therefore, for purposes of removal to federal court, certification is “conclusive.” 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d)(2) (explaining that “certification of the Attorney General shall concl…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Claude Cimino v. Raymark Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh Corning Corporation and Asbestos Corporation Limited
(2×)
See, e.g., Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir.1997), ce rt. denied,-U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997); Browning v. Navarro, 887 F.2d 553, 557 (5th Cir.1989), reh’g denied, 894 F.2d 99 (5th Cir.1990); Northshore Development, Inc. v. Lee, 835 F.2d 580, 583 (5th Cir.1988) ("a motions panel decision is not binding precedent”). .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dunbar v. Board of Directors of Leavenworth Public Library
In evaluating retaliation claims, courts have made it clear that “ ‘not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.’ ” Jeffries v. Kansas Dep’t of Social & Rehabilitation Servs., 946 F.Supp. 1556, 1567 (D.Kan.1996) (quoting Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir.1996)); see also Craft v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 139 F.3d 911 , 1998 WL 72783 at *5 (10th Cir. Feb.23, 1998) citing Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co., 104 F.3d 702, 707 (5th Cir.), cert. denied — U.S. -, 118 S.Ct. 336 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997) (statute designed to address ultimate …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hysten v. Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
Accordingly, we need only address defendant’s argument that plaintiff cannot establish “adverse action” because they did not constitute “an ultimate decision” and the warnings were “unrelated to his termination.” In evaluating Title VII retaliation claims, courts have made it clear that “ ‘not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.’ ” Jeffries v. Kansas Dep’t of Social & Rehabilitation Servs., 946 F.Supp. 1556, 1567 (D.Kan.1996) (quoting Smart v. Ball State Univ., 89 F.3d 437, 441 (7th Cir.1996)); see also Mattern v. Eastman Kodak Co.…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ryan
See Scott v. United States, 997 F.2d 340, 342-43 (7th Cir.1993); see also Martin v. United States, 109 F.3d 1177, 1178 (7th Cir.1996), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 118 S.Ct. 335 , 139 L.Ed.2d 260 (1997).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless
v.
City of Cleveland
v.
City of Cleveland
No. 97-75.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 20, 1997.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.