Foster v. Ruhrpumpen, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.3d 1191 · 2004
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Shikles v. Sprint/United Management Co. (2005), Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007)
10 federal appellate · 14 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) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Terry v. Ashcroft · Simms v. Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services · Mooney v. Aramco Services Co.
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An untimely plaintiff may join a suit initiated by a plaintiff who has timely filed, if their claims arise out of similar discriminatory treatment in the same time frame. This rule is based on the notion that the policies served by compliance with Title VII’s filing requirements — giving notice to the employer and encouraging conciliation — are not violated if the complaints are sufficiently similar.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This individual filing requirement is intended to protect employers by giving them notice of the discrimination claims being brought against them, in addition to providing the EEOC with an opportunity to conciliate the claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A plaintiff normally may not bring a Title VII action based upon claims that were not part of a timely-filed EEOC charge for which the plaintiff has received a right-to-sue-letter.”
2 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.