Case Citator › Michael W. Bass v. Board of County Commissioners

Michael W. Bass v. Board of County Commissioners

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

Abrogated
Court
Eleventh Circuit
Citation
256 F.3d 1095
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
37 of 37
Citing cases (total)
37
Treatment dates
2006–2007
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Michael W. Bass v. Board of County Commissioners was abrogated as to the adverse-action standard for Title VII retaliation claims. All 37 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court's Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White decision adopted a broader standard; the Eleventh Circuit's Crawford v. Carroll identified Bass as applying the former standard and explained that the two standards are distinct. Samuel Moore, Jr. v. ITT Technical Institute had earlier questioned Bass on this point. Both treatments are listed below. The earlier 242 F.3d opinion was vacated and replaced on rehearing by the cited 256 F.3d opinion.

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.

37 later cases cite Michael W. Bass v. Board of County Commissioners; 37 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 Michael W. Bass v. Board of County Commissioners?

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 replaced the adverse-action standard Bass applied to Title VII retaliation claims with a broader materially adverse standard.

    Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We conclude that the antiretaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. We also conclude that the provision covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Questioned

  • The Eleventh Circuit questioned the continued validity of Bass's statements about the requirements for a prima facie retaliation case after Burlington Northern, but did not decide whether those statements remained valid.

    Samuel Moore, Jr. v. ITT Technical Institute · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · filed

    That holding calls into question the accuracy of the district court’s statement of the requirements to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, as well as the continued validity of statements in several of this circuit’s opinions. See, e.g. Bass v. Bd. of County Comm’rs, Orange County, Fla., 256 F.3d 1095, 1117 (11th Cir. 2001); Gupta v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 587 (11th Cir. 2000).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Michael W. Bass v. Board of County Commissioners 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