May v. Shuttle, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 165 · 1997
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Scott v. University of Mississippi (1998), Stokes v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. (2000)
9 federal appellate · 17 district ·
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 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1144 (§ 514 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Vaca v. Sipes · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge ... or discriminate against a participant or beneficiary for exercising any right to which he is entitled under the provisions of an employee benefit plan ... or for the purpose of interfering with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he undisputed evidence shows that [Defendant] furloughed plaintiff[] in order to cut costs ... Plaintiff[] ha[s] presented no evidence to show that [Defendant] was motivated by any other factor. Because plaintiff[] cannot show a specific intent to discriminate, [he] ha[s] failed to establish a prima facie case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“no evidence that they were treated less favorably than younger employees”
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.