Hoffman v. MCA, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
144 F.3d 1117 · 1998
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Patterson v. Avery Dennison Corp. (2002), Gonzalez v. El Dia, Inc. (2002)
24 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sometimes, remarks by an employer can be direct proof of discriminatory intent. But remarks at work that are based on age stereotypes do not invariably prove that age played a part in a particular employment decision. The plaintiff must show that the employer actually relied on [his] age in making its decision.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“he 'need not also come forward with further evidence of intentional discrimination to survive summary judgment. [His] proof would at that point be sufficient to support an inference that the company's real reason was discriminatory'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if a plaintiff can show that the attitudes of the person who made the remarks tainted the decisionmaker's judgment, the remarks can be relevant to prove discrimination.”
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.