Ameritech Benefit Plan Committee v. Communication Workers’s Empirical Analysis
220 F.3d 814 · 2000
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Payton v. County of Kane (2002), Lewis v. Washington (2002)
23 federal appellate · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1404 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963)
Relies on Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · Delaware State College v. Ricks
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority or merit system, or a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production or to employees who work in different locations, provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, nor shall it be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test, its administration or action upon the results is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of section 206(d) of Title 29.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to a seniority system that has been adopted for an intentionally discriminatory purpose in violation of this subchapter (whether or not that discriminatory purpose is apparent on the face of the seniority provision), when the seniority system is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to the seniority system, or when a person aggrieved is injured by the application of the seniority system or provision of the system.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defendant classes, initiated by those opposed to the interests of the class, are more likely than plaintiff classes to include members whose interest diverge from those of the named representatives ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bell v. Brockett
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.