green
Positive treatment
2.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 2002 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2002
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Slater v. Susquehanna County
(2×)
The ADEA’s anti-retaliation provision also mirrors that of Title VII and the two have the same requirements to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. 29 U.S.C. § 623 (d); Fasold v. Justice, 409 F.3d 178, 188 (3d Cir.2005) (giving prima facie retaliation test under ADEA and PHRA); see also Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 283 F.3d 561, 567 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 824 , 123 S.Ct. 112 , 154 L.Ed.2d 35 (2002) (noting that precedent interpreting the ADEA or Title VII anti-retaliation provision is equally relevant to interpretation of the other).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dias v. Goodman Manufacturing Co.
(2×)
See, e.g., Fogleman v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 283 F.3d 561, 569 (3d Cir.2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 824 , 123 S.Ct. 112 , 154 L.Ed.2d 35 (2002) (addressing provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act and stating, "Although ... recognizing third-party retaliation claims is more consistent with the purpose of the anti-discrimination statutes, we cannot say that prohibiting such claims is an absurd outcome that contravenes the clearly expressed intent of the legislature”); Smith v. Riceland Foods, Inc., 151 F.3d 813, 819 (8th Cir.1998) (holding …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Caldrello Et Ux.
v.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
v.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
01-1837.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
CALDRELLO ET UX.
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ET AL.
No. 01-1837.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 7, 2002.
1
CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF CONNECTICUT.
2
App. Ct. Conn. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 68 Conn. App. 68, 789 A. 2d 1005.