Bray v. Marriott Hotels’s Empirical Analysis
110 F.3d 986 · 1997
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 29 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Simpson v. Kay Jewelers (1998), Blunt v. Lower Merion School District (2014)
18 federal appellate · 29 district · 3 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · National Union Fire Insurance v. Helfand
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“demonstrate such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer’s prof fered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them “unworthy of credence” and hence infer “that the employer did not act for [the asserted] nondiscriminatory reasons.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he elements of the prima facie case and disbelief of the defendant’s proffered reasons are the threshold findings, beyond which the jury is permitted, but not required, to draw an inference leading it to conclude that there was intentional discrimination____It follow[s] that a plaintiff may survive summary judgment ... if the plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the employer’s proffered reasons were not its true reasons for the challenged employment action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hether evidence of inconsistencies and implausibilities in the employer’s proffered reasons for discharge reasonably could support an inference that the employer did not act for non-diserimina-tory reasons, not whether the evidence necessarily leads to [the] conclusion that the employer did act for discriminatory reasons.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.