Showalter v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.3d 231 · 1999
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A. (2004), Kautz v. Met-Pro Corp. (2005)
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. · Fuentes v. Perskie · Armbruster v. Unisys 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.
“[a] reasonable factfinder could conclude that [the defendant decisionmaker] had the discretion to choose any of the three forms of seniority; that he knew in advance the result that each choice would produce; and that he selected department seniority because he knew it would result in the termination of the oldest employee, [the plaintiff].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`[t]he burden of production (but not the burden of persuasion) shifts to the defendant, who must then offer evidence that is sufficient, if believed, to support a finding that the defendant had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the [adverse employment decision].'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the plaintiff must show (1) that he was at least forty years old, (2) that he was fired, (3) that he was qualified for the job from which he was fired, and (4) that he `was replaced by a sufficiently younger person to create an inference of age discrimination.'”
2 later decisions 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.