green
Positive treatment
1.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2003
2014
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Slater v. Susquehanna County
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.
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…
Infinite Pictures, Inc.
v.
Interactive Pictures Corp., fka Omniview, Inc.
v.
Interactive Pictures Corp., fka Omniview, Inc.
No. 01-1849.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 2002.
Published
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.