Bramble v. American Postal Workers Union’s Empirical Analysis
135 F.3d 21 · 1998
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 8 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2018
7 federal appellate · 8 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. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 630 (§ 11 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · United States v. O'Brien · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins · Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The linchpin of a disparate treatment claim is proof of the employer’s discriminatory motive. Not so a claim of disparate impact: that type of claim is predicated not on proof of intentional discrimination, but, rather, on proof that the employer utilizes employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but... in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business necessity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where an employer targets a single employee and implements a policy which has, to date, affected only that one employee, there is simply no basis for a disparate impact claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.