Coward v. ADT Security Systems, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 271 · 1998
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1999), Carney v. The American University (1998)
12 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Bazemore v. Friday
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The `Project Manager' title in ADT's records is her only evidence suggesting that her duties and skills amount to anything other than those of a Data Supervisor. She has pointed to no other evidence that would support an inference that she is a Project Manager or should be paid like one. Although job titles usually serve as strong evidence of an employee's actual skills and duties . . . [the plaintiffs] admission that she knew nothing about the duties of Project Managers or even that she held the title, together with ADT's undisputed explanation that the title was temporary, eliminates any genuine dispute about the real nature of her work.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“While the omission of variables from a regression analysis may render the analysis less probative than it otherwise might be, it can hardly be said, absent some other infirmity, that an analysis which accounts for the major factors must be considered unacceptable as evidence of discrimination. Normally, failure to include variables will affect the analysis’ probativeness, not its admissibility.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). In the first appeal in this case, we determined that Coward had established a prima facie case of wage discrimination. See id. at 275-76. Coward I did not, however, specify the time period covered by the prima facie case. Yet the majority now assumes that Coward I must have found a prima facie case for the entire period addressed in Coward's complaint.”
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.