Roberts v. Separators, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.3d 448 · 1999
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Herrnreiter v. Chicago Housing Authority (2002), Gordon v. United Airlines, Inc. (2001)
14 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 215
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · McCoy v. WGN Continental Broadcasting Co. · Sarsha v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Oliver POLLARD, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. REA MAGNET WIRE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The common actor presumption exists when an employee in a protected class “is hired and fired by the same decision-maker in a relatively short time span” ... “It is highly doubtful that a person who hires an employee in the protected age group ... would fire that same employee ... as a result of a sudden ‘aversion to older people.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where an employer has honestly described the motivation for its decision, that decision is not pretext for discrimination just because the plaintiff asserts the defendant's beliefs were inaccurate.”
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.