Odom v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
3 F.3d 839 · 1993
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1999), Mackenzie v. Denver City and County of (2005)
51 federal appellate · 10 district ·
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 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Odom v. Frank
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[plaintiff] fails to explain (and we fail to see) how the Court’s decision in Reeves undermines our cases articulating the ‘clearly more qualified’ standard”). Nor, as Bright also asserts, is the standard no standard at all. Acknowledging that courts are not well positioned to compare applicants’ qualifications, this court has stat ed, when discussing the clearly better qualified standard, that "unless disparities in curricula vitae are so apparent as virtually to jump off the page and slap us in the face, we judges should be reluctant to substitute our views for those of the individuals charged with the evaluation duty by virtue of their own years of experience and expertise in the field in question.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“subjectivity has a potentiality for abuse by those evaluators who would use it to shield improprieties in the selection process, possibly even as a pretext for discrimination ... as a general rule judges are not as well suited by training or experience to evaluate qualifications for high level promotion in other disciplines as are those persons who have trained and worked for years in the field of endeavor for which the applicants under consideration are being evaluated.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although Strader's testimony ... was less than absolute, it constituted at least some evidence. More significantly, it was uncontradicted. As Odom adduced no evidence favorable to his position ..., we are compelled to accept Strader's legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation....”
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.