Gee v. Principi’s Empirical Analysis
289 F.3d 342 · 2002
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 158 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Inc. (2004), McCoy v. City of Shreveport (2007)
27 federal appellate · 4 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
Relies on Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Shager v. Upjohn Co. · Long v. Eastfield College · Russell v. McKinney Hospital Venture
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 158 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the plaintiff must prove that the employer's stated reason for the adverse action was merely a pretext for the real, discriminatory purpose.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the burden then shifts to the defendant to demonstrate a legitimate nondiscriminatory purpose for the employment action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“discrepancies between Gibbs’ affidavit given during the investigation and his testimony at the administrative hearing. Specifically, [plaintiff] note[d] that although [Gibbs] initially denied that he participated in a meeting relating to [her] position, Gibbs later admitted that he had attended such a meeting. Asked why he did not disclose this fact during the investigation, he responded that he did not know. In addition to this omission, after originally claiming that others were not involved in the selection process, Gibbs later admitted that he conferred with several people. Moreover, although Gibbs at first was unable to recall the substance of the statements made about [the plaintiff] at the'meeting, he later testified that everyone made comments and the general tenor of those comments was unfavorable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.