Majewski v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
274 F.3d 1106 · 2001
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc. (2003), Michael v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. (2007)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[AJdopted an “honest belief’ rule with regard to an employer’s proffered reason for discharging an employee. Under this rule, as long as an employer has an honest belief in its proffered nondiscriminatory reason for discharging an employee, the employee cannot establish that the reason was pretextual simply because it is ultimately shown to be incorrect. An employer has an honest belief in its reason for discharging an employee where the employer reasonably relied “on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.””
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A plaintiff does not state a prima facie case of § 510 interference if the plaintiff demonstrates only that he lost the opportunity to accrue new benefits ... Otherwise, every employee discharged by a company with an ERISA plan would have a claim under § 510.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer's treatment of them for it.'”
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.