Adreani v. First Colonial Bankshares Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
154 F.3d 389 · 1998
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Chapman v. AI Transport (2000), Burks v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (2006)
47 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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'evidence tending to prove that the employer's proffered reasons are factually baseless, were not the actual motivation for the discharge in question, or were insufficient to motivate the discharge.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a presumption of discrimination arises, and the burden shifts to the defendant to come forward with evidence of a 'legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason' for discharging the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The plaintiff in Adreani pointed to his own positive perception of his performance in an attempt to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. We rejected his attempt, noting that (even assuming that an employee’s perception of his own performance can be considered objective evidence of his abilities) evidence that shows that an employer incorrectly assessed its employee’s abilities does not shed light on whether the employer is lying about that assessment. And without proof of a lie, no inference of discriminatory motive can be drawn. Olsen, like the plaintiff in Adreani , has placed his own assessment of his abilities adjacent to his employer’s and asked us to draw from the apparent incongruity the inference that his employer is lying. An employee’s perception of his own performance, however, cannot tell a reasonable factfinder something about what the employer believed about the employee’s abilities.”
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.