Webb v. Merck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 10 district ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor · General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“cut[ting] across employment status, job categories, facilities and geographic regions”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[0]ther than sharing the common position of being black employees of Merck, the plaintiffs’ allegations are discrete and individualized. Plaintiffs were employed in different states, in different divisions, in different facilities and at different levels within the company hierarchy. Their grievances are not susceptible to generalized proof or defenses. In essence, this action is nothing more than a consolidation of 20 accounts of individualized disparate treatment. Plaintiffs have not fully satisfied the commonality and typicality requirements [for class certification], [T]here are just too many individual issues which prevent this action from being certified. ... [A]ll of the named class members' claims are subject to unique defenses which would require the fact finder to evaluate all legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for defendant’s employment decisions involving each named plaintiff as well as the potentially 5000 class members. Simply put, in order to resolve each putative class member's claim, the fact finder will be forced to evaluate the individualized facts and circumstances surrounding compensation decisions relating to initial assignments, performance reviews, job postings, promotions and overall compensation.”
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.