DiCarlo v. Potter’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.3d 408 · 2004
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 358 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. (2008), Imwalle v. Reliance Medical Products, Inc. (2008)
74 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 633A (§ 15 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 794 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. · Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
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 358 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[D]irect evidence is that evidence which, if believed, requires the conclusion that unlawful discrimination was at least a motivating factor in 'the employer’s actions. Consistent with .this, definition, direct evidence of discrimination does not require a factfinder to draw any inferences in order to conclude that the .challenged employment action was motivated at least in part by prejudice against members of the protected group. [T]he evidence must establish not only that the plaintiffs employer was predisposed to discriminate on the basis of [national origin], but also that the employer acted on that predisposition. Finally, an employee who has presented direct evidence of improper motive does not bear the burden of disproving other possible nonretaliatory reasons for the adverse action, Rather, the burden shifts to the employer to .prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision absent the impermissible motive.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) he engaged in an activity protected by Title VII; (2) the defendant knew he engaged in this protected activity; (3) thereafter, the defendant took an employment action adverse to him; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.”
4 later decisions 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.