Case Citator › Weston v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

Weston v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

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

Overruled in part
Court
Third Circuit
Citation
251 F.3d 420
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
56 of 56
Citing cases (total)
56
Treatment dates
2006
Overruled in part
A reviewed court has overruled part of this case’s holding. All 56 flagged citations to Weston have been read; one of its holdings has since been displaced. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White (2006) rejected the circuit standards that limited actionable retaliation to actions affecting the terms and conditions of employment, the standard Weston applied in holding that temporary written reprimands were not adverse actions.
More on how this was screened

Burlington Northern does not name Weston; it named the Third Circuit's Robinson standard that Weston followed, and later courts record the change, among them the Third Circuit in Deans v. Kennedy House, Inc. (2014) ("overruled in part on other grounds by Burlington N."). Weston's other holdings, including its hostile-work-environment analysis, continue to be cited, and none of the 56 citing opinions treats it adversely on its own.

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.

56 later cases cite Weston v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; 56 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 Weston v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania?

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

Overruled in part

  • The Supreme Court displaced Weston's rule that retaliation is actionable under Title VII only when it effects a material change in the terms or conditions of employment.

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

    For these reasons, we conclude that Title VII’s substantive provision and its antiretaliation provision are not coterminous. The scope of the antiretaliation provision extends beyond workplace-related or employment-related retaliatory acts and harm. We therefore reject the standards applied in the Courts of Appeals that have treated the antiretaliation provision as forbidding the same conduct prohibited by the antidiscrimination provision and that have limited actionable retaliation to so-called “ultimate employment decisions.”
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Weston v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 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