green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 5×
8.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 ·
…whenever she asked to go to the restroom, would follow her and wait in the hall until she returned.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Thaddeus-X and Earnest Bell, Jr. v. Blatter
(2×)
But see San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424 (3d Cir.1994) (stating that "[t]he petition clause ... was not intended to be a dead letter — or a graceful but redundant appendage of the clauses guaranteeing freedom of speech and press” {Id. at 442), indicating the context-specific nature of First Amendment inquiries, and subjecting the petition-clause claim to an analysis distinct from the free speech claim in public employment context), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995). .
examined
Cited "but see"
unempl.ins.rep. (Cch) P 22,174 Sally Ann Valot, Jean Hansen, Anna D. Roosa v. Southeast Local School District Board of Education
(4×)
But see San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995). , Specifically, the right to petition is limited to matters of public concern.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Red Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., D.B.A. Borden's Dairy
whenever she asked to go to the restroom, would follow her and wait in the hall until she returned.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Funk v. F & K SUPPLY, INC.
it is one thing to call a woman vorthless,' and another to call her a 'worthless broad.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Mendoza v. Borden, Inc.
whenever she asked to go to the restroom, would follow her and wait in the hall until she returned.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Rasmusson v. Copeland Lumber Yards, Inc.
we do not rule out the possibility that both men and women working at showboat have viable claims against for sexual harassment.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Strongman v. Idaho Potato Commission
sexual or gender-based conduct which is abusive, humiliating, or threatening violates title vii____
discussed
Cited "see"
Wood v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N
See Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 633 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 642 So.2d 1362 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995); Marcelo v. Department of Labor & Employ.
cited
Cited "see"
Walukiewicz v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N
See, Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Commission, 633 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 642 So.2d 1362 (Fla.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hostetler, Ann M. v. Quality Dining Inc
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Steiner v. Showboat Op. Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S. Ct. 733 (1995). /10 See also EEOC Compliance Manual (CCH) sec. 615.4(a)(9)(iii), para. 3103, at 3210 (2000) (to determine whether employer took appropriate corrective action in response to co-worker harassment, EEOC will consider "[w]hether it fully remedied the conduct without adversely affecting the terms or conditions of the charging party’s employment in some manner (for example, by requiring the charging party to work less desirable hours or in a less desirable location)").
discussed
Cited "see"
Ann M. Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc.
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Steiner v. Showboat Op. Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995). 10 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Henry v. County of Shasta
See Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1368 (9th Cir.1994) (rejecting § 1983 claim where plaintiff cited no facts nor law showing that a police commander is an authorized decisionmaker for the City and County), ce rt. denied, 513 U.S. 1083 , 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Bogacik v. Unemployment Appeals Commission
See Brown v. Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 633 So.2d 36 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 642 So.2d 1362 (Fla.1994), cert denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995); Glenn v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Com’n, 516 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
examined
Cited "see"
Peter Anderson v. Ramon Davila Kenneth Mapp Robert Soto Elton Lewis Government of the Virgin Islands, D/B/A Virgin Islands Police Department
(4×)
See San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424, 434-443 (3d Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S. Ct. 735 , 130 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Raymond Vincent Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corporation
See Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459 , 1465 n. 6 (9th Cir.1994) (questioning whether transfer from swing shift to day shift was “adverse” employment action where employee “was not demoted, or put in a worse job, or given any additional responsibilities”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995); Yates v. Avco Corp., 819 F.2d 630, 638 (6th Cir.1987) (no adverse employment action where temporary transfer did not result in loss of salary or benefits).
discussed
Cited "see"
Nicole M. Ex Rel. Jacqueline M. v. Martinez Unified School District
See Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464 (9th Cir.1994) (indicating that changing shift of person complaining of sexual harassment rather than changing shift of harasser is insufficient to relieve employer of liability), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Estate of Phillips v. City of Milwaukee
See Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995) (quoting Greenberg v. Kmetko, 922 F.2d 382, 385 (7th Cir.1991)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. Miller
See San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424, 441-43 (3rd Cir.1994), cert. denied, -U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995); see also Kara Elizabeth Shea, Recent Development, San Filippo v. Bongiovanni: The Public Concern Criteria and the Scope of the Modern Petition Right, 48 Vand.L.Rev. 1697 (1995) (providing a general analysis of San Filippo).
cited
Cited "see"
95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8020, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,778 Sue Kruse and Lance Caspary, on Behalf of Themselves and Their Minor Son Kanoa v. State of Hawai'i
See Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Kruse ex rel. Kanoa v. Hawai'i
See Alexander v. City and County of San Francisco, 29 F.3d 1355, 1359 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gregorich v. Lund
Id. at 409-10 ; see Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir.1994) ("[W]e do not mean to suggest that merely because the employee has a personal interest in the subject of her remarks, they do not constitute speech on a matter of public concern."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995). 14 In this case, Mr. Gregorich's activity consisted of union-organizing efforts among the judicial research attorneys of the Fourth District.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gregorich v. Lund
Id. at 409-10 ; see Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir.1994) (“[W]e do not mean to suggest that merely because the employee has a personal interest in the subject of her remarks, they do not constitute speech on a matter of public concern.”), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mathirampuzha v. Potter
Second, in an action that begins as a FTCA claim in federal court, the Secretary’s discretion in construing the scope of the FECA is cabined before, rather than after, the final agency decision: Courts need not refer FTCA claims to the Secretary of Labor unless there is a "substantial question” of FECA coverage. *83 We note, too, that several appellate courts have held that "an implicit and narrow exception to the bar on judicial review exists for claims that the agency exceeded the scope of its delegated authority or violated a clear statutory mandate.” Hanauer v. Reich, 82 F.3d 1304, 1…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mathirampuzha v. Potter
We note, too, that several appellate courts have held that "an implicit and narrow exception to the bar on judicial review exists for claims that the agency exceeded the scope of its delegated authority or violated a clear statutory mandate." Hanauer v. Reich, 82 F.3d 1304, 1307 (4th Cir. 1996); see also Brumley v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 28 F.3d 746, 747 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 (1995); Woodruff v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 954 F.2d 634, 639 (11th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Staacke v. U.S. Sec'y of Labor, 841 F.2d 278, 281 (9th Cir. 1988).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Pappas v. J.S.B. Holdings, Inc.
See e.g., Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. Boeing-Oak Ridge Co.
Id.; see also Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1465 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995) (transferring female employee from swing shift to day shift not adverse employment action).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harding v. Rosewell
See, e.g., Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646, 651 (7th Cir.1994) (finding that speech on second hand smoke was a matter of public interest but was not protected when made for a person’s own interest), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1083 , 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995). *814 The defendants concede, as they must, that Mr. Harding’s alleged cooperation with the FBI is a matter of public concern and thus constitutionally protected speech.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Brandrup v. Starkey
Id. at 505 , 879 P.2d 888 (citing Lathrope-Olson v. Oregon Department of Transportation, 128 Or.App. 405, 408 , 876 P.2d 345 (1994) (plaintiff told by supervisor that “all women were good for was between their legs”)); see also Steiner v. Showboat Operating Company, 25 F.3d 1459, 1466 (9th Cir.1994) (noting that “while simple insults do not constitute mtentional infliction of emotional distress, insults which include sexual or racial harassment may rise to that level.”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 733 , 130 L.Ed.2d 636 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bowers v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
(2×)
Surin, 21 F.3d at 1314 (quoting Lunderstadt, 885 F.2d at 71 (quoting Dowling v. City of Philadelphia, 855 F.2d 136, 140 (3d Cir.1988)); see also San Filippo v. Bongiovanni, 30 F.3d 424, 432 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 735 , 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ross v. Glickman
Simplot Co., 26 F.3d 885, 889 (9th Cir.1994) (citation and internal quotations omitted); see also Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464-65 (9th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1082 (1995) (applying same order and allocation of proof in retaliation claim).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee-Patterson v. New Jersey Transit Bus Operations, Inc.
(2×)
The court held the inference that the employer “hatched an elaborate plot to get rid of [the employee] a year and a half after he filed his claim is too speculative to justify a rational finder of fact in concluding ... that, more likely than not, [the employee] would not have been fired had he not filed [the claim].” Id. at 934 ; compare DeCintio v. Westchester County Medical Center, 821 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir.) (a showing of discharge “soon after” protected activity is indirect proof of requisite causal connection), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 965 , 108 S.Ct. 455 , 98 L.Ed.2d 395 (1987) wi…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Teresa Ambrosini v. Jorge Labarraque and the Upjohn Company
Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. 6 See also Joiner v. General Electric Co., 78 F.3d 524 , 529 (11th Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, 65 U.S.L.W. 3110 (U.S. Aug. 5, 1996) (No. 96-188) ("Trial judges must evaluate scientific processes and studies with which they may not be intimately familiar, but be careful not to cross the line between deciding whether the expert's testimony is based on 'scientifically valid principles' and deciding upon the correctness of the expert's conclusions.") 7 See, e.g., Joiner, 78 F.3d at 530 (11th Cir.1996) ("In analyzing the admissibility of ex…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Escatell v. County of San Diego
See, e.g., Barlow v. Ground, 943 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.1991) ("Even if the parties agreed on the amount of force that was applied in this case, the question whether that force was reasonable could not properly be resolved on summary judgment."), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1206 (1992). 7 Mrs. Escatell also argues that the police officers used excessive force in entering the decedent's room and "unreasonably created the situation that they had to shoot their way out of." A claim of excessive force may be based on a showing that the officers "used excessive force in creating the situation which ca…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bongiovanni
v.
San Filippo
v.
San Filippo
No. 94-872.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 9, 1995.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.