Case Citator › Fuller v. Phipps

Fuller v. Phipps

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

Abrogated
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
67 F.3d 1137
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
33 of 33
Citing cases (total)
33
Treatment dates
2003
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Fuller v. Phipps was abrogated in part on the proof needed for a Title VII mixed motive instruction. All 33 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court held in Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa that direct evidence is unnecessary for that instruction. The Fourth Circuit later described Fuller as abrogated on this ground in Bryant v. Aiken Regional Medical Centers, Inc. and Worden v. SunTrust Banks, Inc. Fuller’s separate discussion of ordinary pretext claims and the need to connect evidence of bias to the employment decision was not displaced by that holding.

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.

33 later cases cite Fuller v. Phipps; 33 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 Fuller v. Phipps?

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

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court displaced Fuller’s requirement of direct evidence to obtain a mixed motive instruction under Title VII.

    Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The question before us in this case is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act). We hold that direct evidence is not required.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Fuller v. Phipps 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