Vaszlavik v. Storage Technology Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (2001), David Hipp Brad Stein v. Liberty National Life Insurance Co (2001)
1 federal appellate · 20 district · 2 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. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins · Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All non-bargaining unit employees who were laid off by Defendant because of their perceived use or perceived anticipated use of company benefits, due to their age, actual utilization of corporate benefit plans, and life style choices, including smoking and weight, pursuant to company wide layoffs between April 13,1993, and December 31,1996.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; (3) fairness and procedural considerations; and (4) whether plaintiffs made the filings required by the ADEA before instituting suit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Any disparities among the employment situations of the individual plaintiffs are irrelevant during the liability phase, judicial economies are clearly served by proceeding collectively, and the defendant is not prejudiced. This represents the epitome of similarly situated plaintiffs.”
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.