green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
7.6 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 1 distinct case ·
“a generalized fear of retaliation cannot justify a failure to report sexual harassment”
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jernigan v. Alderwoods Group, Inc.
a generalized fear of retaliation cannot justify a failure to report sexual harassment
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises, Inc.
title vii is designed to encourage the creation of anti-harassment policies and effective grievance mechanisms.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Branch v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated
we conclude that a first-served defendant can consent to a later-served defendant's removal petition, despite having already failed in its own efforts to remove
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas P. Loftis v. United Parcel Service, Inc. David Cole, Kenneth Adkins
See Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 , 533 n. 3 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1076 , 120 S.Ct. 790 , 145 L.Ed.2d 667 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Weeden v. Auto Workers Credit Union
See Weeden v. Auto Workers Credit Union, Inc., No. 97-3073, 1999 WL 191430 (6th Cir. Mar.19, 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1076 , 120 S.Ct. 790 , 145 L.Ed.2d 667 (2000) (Weeden I).
discussed
Cited "see"
Harrison v. Eddy Potash, Inc.
Although we have never addressed the issue, other circuit courts have expressly stated that, for purposes of applying the Faragher/Burlington affirmative defense, “[a] generalized fear of retaliation does not excuse a failure to report sexual harassment.” Barrett v. Applied Radiant Energy Corp., 240 F.3d 262, 266 (4th Cir.2001); see Shaw v. AutoZone, Inc., 180 F.3d 806, 813 (7th Cir.1999) (“[W]e conclude that an employee’s subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not alleviate the employee’s duty under Ellerth to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile …
discussed
Cited "see"
Madray v. Publix Supermarkets
See Shaw v. Autozone, Inc., 180 F.3d 806, 812 (7th Cir. 1999) (concluding that a sexual harassment policy was reasonable when the offending supervisor’s immediate supervisor “visited the store approximately every two to three weeks”), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 120 S. Ct. 790 , 145 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
See Shaw v. AutoZone, Inc., 180 F.3d 806, 812 (7th Cir.1999) (concluding that a sexual harassment policy was reasonable when the offending supervisor’s immediate supervisor “visited the store approximately every two to three weeks”), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 120 S.Ct. 790 , 145 L.Ed.2d 666 (2000).
cited
Cited "see"
Griffith v. American Home Products Corp.
See Brierly v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 184 F.3d 527 , 533 and 533 n. 3 (6th Cir.1999), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 790 , 145 L.Ed.2d 667 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Faye Haugerud v. Amery School District
Thus, this is not like the majority of the cases we consider, in which plaintiff contests the efficacy of the employers response; see, e.g., Shaw v. AutoZone, Inc., 180 F.3d 806, 811-12 (7th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1076 , 120 S.Ct. 790 , 145 L.Ed.2d 666 (2000), this is a case where the employer simply did not act.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Haugerud, Faye v. Amery School Dist
Thus, this is not like the majority of the cases we consider, in which plaintiff contests the efficacy of the employers response; see, e.g., Shaw v. AutoZone, Inc., 180 F.3d 806, 811-12 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1076 , 120 S. Ct. 790 , 145 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
v.
Joseph P. NIGRO, Trustee, Estate of Tri-State Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
v.
Joseph P. NIGRO, Trustee, Estate of Tri-State Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
No. 99-663.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 10, 2000.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.