Lowery’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 32 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “In a class action pattern or practice case, the plaintiffs first litigate common questions of fact, i.e., whether the employer utilized a pattern or practice which discriminated against the class ... When the class plaintiffs prove the existence of a discriminatory practice, then that finding benefits them in the adjudication of individual claims by creating a presumption that the individual class members were victims of the discriminatory practice ... On the other hand, an individual plaintiff, in a non-class action alleging employment discrimination is riot litigating common questions of fact, but the discrete question of whether the employer discriminated against the plaintiff in a specific instance ...”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bostron v. Apfel · 39 F. Supp. 2d 899 - Herendeen v. Michigan State Police

2. “is to substantially lessen each class member’s evidentiary burden relative to that which would be required if the employee were proceeding separately with an individual disparate treatment claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework. Rather than having to make out a prima facie case of discrimination and prove that the employer’s asserted' busi ness justification is merely a pretext for discrimination, a class member at the remedial stage of a pattern-or-practice claim need only show that he or she suffered an adverse employment decision and therefore was a potential victim of the proved class-wide discrimination. The burden of persuasion then shifts to the employer to demonstrate that the individual was subjected to the adverse employment decision for lawful reasons.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Muhammad v. Giant Food, Inc.

3. “This is not a ‘pattern and practice’ suit by the government under section 707, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6, in which the government may postpone until the ‘remedial’ stage of trial proof that each individual for whom it seeks relief was discrimina-torily denied an employment opportunity. [citations omitted] Nor is this a private class action, in which a similar manner of proceeding with the production of evidence is appropriate, [citations omitted] An individual proceeding as an individual under Title VII must prove the elements of a discriminatory hiring claim as set forth in McDonnell Douglas.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 255 F. Supp. 2d 591 - Burrell v. Crown Central Petroleum, Inc.