Case Citator › Martinez v. Potter

Martinez v. Potter

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Declined by some courts
Court
Tenth Circuit
Citation
347 F.3d 1208
Decided
Confirmed treatments
3
Flagged citations read
63 of 63
Citing cases (total)
63
Treatment dates
2008–2012
Declined by some courts
At least one reviewed court has declined to follow this case. No reviewed court has overruled it. Martinez v. Potter remains controlling in the Tenth Circuit, but three courts elsewhere declined to follow its requirement that each later discrete employment act be separately raised with the EEOC. All 63 flagged citations have been read, and the 3 confirmed treatments are listed below.
More on how this was screened

Other opinions, including later Tenth Circuit decisions, applied Martinez's exhaustion rule or cited it to describe the Supreme Court's decision in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

63 later cases cite Martinez v. Potter; 63 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Martinez v. Potter?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Declined to follow

  • A District of Columbia court chose a narrower exhaustion test that asks whether an EEOC investigation could reasonably encompass later discrimination claims.

    Lewis v. District of Columbia · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · filed

    The Tenth Circuit, on the other hand, interprets the Supreme Court’s holding broadly. Whereas the Supreme Court’s decision barred untimely, but related, incidents occurring prior to the filing of an EEOC complaint, the Tenth Circuit expanded the holding to require exhaustion of remedies for related “incidents occurring ... after ... the filing of [the] plaintiffs EEO complaint.” Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (10th Cir.2003) ... Applying a narrow reading of Morgan, consistent with this Circuit’s post-Morgan jurisprudence, the court must consider whether an investigation arising from the plaintiffs EEOC complaint would encompass the fourth and fifth non-selections.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • Another District of Columbia court adopted an exception for related, ongoing retaliation claims instead of Martinez's separate-exhaustion rule.

    Thomas v. Vilsack · U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia · filed

    The circuits have split on whether a plaintiff must raise the new claim in a separate administrative complaint before bringing the claim to the district court, or whether the claim is encompassed within the initial administrative complaint. ... with Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (10th Cir.2003) (holding that Morgan abrogates the continuing violation doctrine as previously applied to retaliatory actions and replaces it with a framework that requires each discrete incident of discrimination or retaliation to be exhausted). ... This Court finds the court’s reasoning in Lewis and Bemanke to be persuasive, adopts its holding, and applies it to the facts in this case.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • An Indiana federal court applied its circuit's exception for retaliation after an EEOC charge and rejected Martinez's broader exhaustion requirement.

    Finch v. City of Indianapolis · U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana · filed

    Although the Tenth Circuit views National Railroad as requiring an EEOC charge for every act on which a Title VII claim is based, including a charge of retaliation for having gone to the EEOC in the first place, Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210-11 (10th Cir.2003), other circuits have held, or signaled their agreement, that National Railroad does not abrogate the McKenzie-type “exception” to administrative exhaustion. ... Because the McKenzie rule and its rationale are not in conflict with National Railroad, the court DENIES the City’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Finch’s retaliation claims based on his failure to file EEOC charges for those retaliatory acts.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Martinez v. Potter and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace