188 W. Va. 17 - Dobson v. Eastern Associated Coal Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably 195 W. Va. 512 - Gentry v. Mangum (1995), 193 W. Va. 475 - Barefoot v. Sundale Nursing Home (1995)
24 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. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Herrmann v. United States · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society · 24 Cal. 3d 458 - Gay Law Students Ass'n v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Maxfield v. Sinclair International
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A court, in rendering a judgment for the complainant in an action brought under this article, shall order, as the court considers appropriate, reinstatement of the employee, the payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits and seniority rights, actual damages or any combination of these remedies. A court may also award the complainant all or a portion of the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees and witness fees, if the court determines that the award is appropriate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The first two parts of the test are easy, but the third will cause controversy. Because discrimination is essentially an element of the mind, there will probably be very little direct proof available. Direct proof, however, is not required. What is required of the plaintiff is to show some evidence which would sufficiently link the employer’s decision and the plaintiffs status as a member of a protected class so as to give rise to an inference that the employment decision was based on an illegal discriminatory criterion. This evidence could, for example, come in the form of an admission by the employer, a case of unequal or disparate treatment between members of the protected class and others by the elimination of the apparent legitimate reasons for the decision, or statistics in a large operation which show that members of the protected class received substantially worse treatment than others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to make a prima facie case of age discrimination under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W.Va.Code, 5-11-1 et seq. [1979], the plaintiff must offer proof of the following: (1) That the plaintiff is a member of a protected class. (2) That the employer made an adverse decision concerning the plaintiff. (3) But for the plaintiffs protected status, the adverse decision would not have been made.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.