Case Citator › Stephanie Walker Nyree Preston v. Cheryl Thompson Don Kingston Glasfloss Industries, Inc.

Stephanie Walker Nyree Preston v. Cheryl Thompson Don Kingston Glasfloss Industries, Inc.

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

Abrogated
Court
Fifth Circuit
Citation
214 F.3d 615
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
45 of 45
Citing cases (total)
45
Treatment dates
2006
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Walker v. Thompson was abrogated on its Title VII retaliation rule: all 45 flagged citations have been read, and the one confirmed treatment is listed below. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White rejected Walker's requirement that retaliation affect an ultimate employment decision.
More on how this was screened

Later courts, including the Fifth Circuit in Wooten v. Federal Express Corp., identify that abrogation while continuing to apply Walker's separate hostile-work-environment 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.

45 later cases cite Stephanie Walker Nyree Preston v. Cheryl Thompson Don Kingston Glasfloss Industries, Inc.; 45 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 Stephanie Walker Nyree Preston v. Cheryl Thompson Don Kingston Glasfloss Industries, Inc.?

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 rejected Walker's rule that a Title VII retaliation claim must concern an ultimate employment decision; materially adverse action can occur outside the workplace or leave employment terms unchanged.

    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 →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Stephanie Walker Nyree Preston v. Cheryl Thompson Don Kingston Glasfloss Industries, Inc. 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