Occidental Life Insurance Company of California v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
611 federal appellate · 235 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,678 later decisions (82 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan (2002), Wilson v. Garcia (1985)
611 federal appellate · 235 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedEQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCCIDENTAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 707 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. · Holmberg v. Armbrecht
Cited together with Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Holmberg v. Armbrecht
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 1,678 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“State legislatures do not devise their limitations periods with national interests in mind, and it is the duty of the federal courts to assure that the importation of state law will not frustrate or interfere with the implementation of national policies.”
104 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f a complainant is dissatisfied with the progress the EEOC is making on his or her charge ... he or she may elect to circumvent the EEOC procedures and seek relief through a private enforcement action in a district court. The 180-day limitation provides only that this private right of action does not arise until 180 days after a charge has been filed.... After waiting for that period, the complainant may either file a private action within 90 days after EEOC notification or continue to leave the ultimate resolution of his charge to the efforts of the EEOC.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f a charge filed with the Commission ... is dismissed by the Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the filing of such charge or the expira tion of any period of reference ... whichever is later, the Commission has not filed a civil action under this section ... or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agreement to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission ... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge....”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.