Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 F.3d 178 - Fasold v. Justice

Fasold v. Justice’s Empirical Analysis

409 F.3d 178 · 2005

Citation profile

130
cited by 130 later decisions
2
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 130 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Hill v. Borough of Kutztown (2006), Moore

17 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

74020052010decided

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. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine

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

  1. ““a plaintiff who has made out a prima facie case may defeat a motion for summary judgment by either (i) discrediting the proffered reasons, either circumstantially or directly, or (ii) adducing evidence, whether circumstantial or direct, that discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause of the adverse employment action. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 (3d Cir.1994). (internal citation omitted) In other words, if the aggrieved employee can raise evidence sufficient ‘to discredit the employer’s proffered reasons ... the employee need not also come forward with additional evidence of discrimination beyond his ... prima facie case in order to survive summary judgment.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, after which the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision. If the employer articulates one or more such reasons, the aggrieved employee must then proffer evidence that is sufficient to allow a reasonable finder of fact to find by a preponderance of the evidence that the employer’s proffered reasons are false or pretextual.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a plaintiff must show that his or her age 'actually motivated' or 'had a determinative influence on' the employer's adverse employment decision.”
    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.