Ruff v. Target Stores, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 631 (§ 12 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins · Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Regardless of the type of evidence offered by a plaintiff as support for her discrimination claim (direct, circumstantial, or evidence of pretext), or whether she proceeds under a mixed-motive or single-motive theory, the ultimate question in every employment discrimination case involving a claim of disparate treatment is whether the plaintiff was the victim of intentional discrimination. To demonstrate such an intent to discriminate on the part of the employer, an individual alleging disparate treatment based upon a protected trait must produce sufficient evidence upon which one could find that the protected trait actually motivated the employer’s decision. The protected trait must have actually played a role in the employer’s decision-making process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.”
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.