Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Whitegreen2 sentences2025“The objective materiality requirement is necessary ‘to separate significant from trivial harms.’” Id. 2024“This objective materiality requirement is necessary ‘to separate significant from trivial harms.’” Id. (quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry., 548 U.S. at 68 ). | 2 | 5 |
Berry, Maxine P. v. Board of Regents of Texas Southern Universitygreen1 sentence2025The supreme court has explained S. Univ., 116 S.W.3d 323, 325 (Tex.App.— that this objective materiality standard, which is Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied). | 1 | 1 |
NME Hospitals, Inc. v. Rennelsgreen1 sentence2017CODE ANN. § 21.001(1) (West 2006); see also NME Hosps., Inc. v. Rennels, 994 S.W.2d 142, 144 (Tex. 1999). 6 The objective materiality standard requires that a plaintiff “show that a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” Burlington N. & Sante Fe Ry. | 1 | 1 |
Bridwell v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Id.; see id. art. 581-4(F); see also Bridwell, 804 S.W.2d at 904 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeLaygreen1 sentence2016Id.; see id. art. 581-4(F); see also Bridwell, 804 S.W.2d at 904 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alamo Heights Independent School District v. Catherine Clark
green
2 sentences2023“This objective materiality requirement is necessary to separate significant from trivial harms.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). 2021Id. | 2 | 2021–2023 |
Montgomery County v. Park
green
2 sentences2016The supreme court has explained that this objective materiality standard, which is derived from federal employment law, allows claims based on retaliatory actions “likely to deter” reporting of governmental violations of law while weeding out “petty slights” and “minor annoyances.” Id. 2015The supreme court has explained that this objective materiality standard, which is derived from federal employment law, allows claims based on retaliatory actions “likely to deter” reporting of governmental violations of law while weeding out “petty slights” and “minor annoyances.” Id. | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.