Phillips v. Cohen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions

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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “competing expert opinions present the `classic battle of the experts' and it [is] up to a jury to evaluate what weight and credibility each expert opinion deserves.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · 342 F. Supp. 3d 791 - Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc.

2. “Second, cases concerning promotions appear reticent to apply the Wards Cove requirement of using qualified persons as the benchmark for the disparate impact analysis. In [Connecticut v.] Teal the Court examined whether a threshold test administered to employees who wished to become supervisors had a discriminatory effect. 457 U.S. [440] at 444, 102 S.Ct. 2525 , 73 L.Ed.2d 130 [(1982)]. Disparate impact was determined by what percentage of each ethnic group passed the test; the Court did not find it necessary to control for factors such as the employee’s professional experience. Id. Similarly, Scales, 925 F.2d 901 (6th Cir.1991), a case from this Circuit, found gender discrimination on the basis of evidence that it took women longer than men to be promoted to the first managerial level in the company. Scales, 925 F.2d at 906 . The district court had found the data legally insufficient, because they failed to screen out factors other than gender. This court reversed, noting, “The Supreme Court has rejected rigid mathematical formulas in analyzing statistics purporting to show disparate impact .... the ‘entire evidence’ in the record must be considered in determining whether a claim for discrimination has been proven.” Id. at 908 (quoting Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S. 385, 404 , 106 S.Ct. 3000 , 92 L.Ed.2d 315 (1986)). The Ninth and Second Circuits, further, conclude that the proper inquiry in promotion cases is “the composition of candidates seeking promotion and the composition”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 727 F. Supp. 2d 677 - Grant v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville

3. “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer— (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. Cintas Corp.