Paluck v. Gooding Rubber Co.’s Empirical Analysis
221 F.3d 1003 · 2000
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc. (2002), Ciralsky v. Central Intelligence Agency (2004)
53 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Gomez v. Dade County School Board · Don Vicente Macias, Inc. v. Texas Gulf Trawling Co. · Russell v. Acme-Evans Co. · Dey v. Colt Construction & Development Co.
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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Normally, statements by a nondecisionmaker do not satisfy a plaintiff's burden of proof in an employment discrimination case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In Heis’ memoranda, he made two allegations about Ms. Paluck’s behavior: that she had problems with attendance and tardiness, and that she spent too much time on personal phone calls. In Ms. Paluck’s response to Heis’ charges against her, she conceded that his first allegation was accurate, and she did not rebut his second allegation. In this court, she does not deny the truth of Heis’ allegations. Ms. Paluck’s filing of a discrimination complaint does not prevent her employer from issuing written charges against her when her conduct warranted disciplinary action. Because it is undisputed that Ms. Paluck’s actions justified disciplinary measures, we do not think a discriminatory motive reasonably may be inferred from Heis’ taking such measures. Thus, even if Mork did rely on Heis’ memoranda to terminate Ms. Paluck, no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that his decision to do so created a situation in which retaliatory motive caused Ms. Pa-luck’s dismissal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if a manager with a retaliatory motive is involved in the [employment] decision ..., that retaliatory motive, in some circumstances, may be imputed to the company, even if the manager with a retaliatory motive was not the ultimate decisionmaker.”
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.