Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 FAPPX 288 - Harris v. Giant Eagle Inc.

Harris v. Giant Eagle Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2020

3 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

80200520102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A ‘direct evidence’ discrimination case requires proof which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in the employer’s actions. Consistent with this definition, direct evidence of discrimination does not require a factfinder to draw any inferences in order to conclude that the challenged employment action was motivated at least in part by prejudice against members of the protected group.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]hen 'an employee challenges his termination as improperly motivated by a supervisor's discriminatory animus and then seeks to impute that animus to the neutral decisionmaker who ultimately terminated the employee,' the plaintiff 'must offer evidence that the supervisor's racial animus was the cause of the termination or somehow influenced the ultimate decisionmaker.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] statement by an intermediate level management official is not indicative of discrimination when the ultimate decision to discharge is made by an upper level official.”
    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.