Asmo v. Keane, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.3d 588 · 2006
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die Co. (2008), Geiger v. Tower Automotive (2009)
10 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 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 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals · Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is unclear how Santoro [the manager] initially came up with these [five] reasons for termination, but the fact that they were later eliminated, and they happen to be the two reasons that Santoro gave that, are false, is very suspicious. It appears that Santoro offered any and all reasons he could think of to justify his decision to Asmo, whether or not they were true. Once a lawsuit was filed and Keane knew the reasons would be subject to scrutiny, it changed the justifications ... to include only those that were either circumstantially true or could not be as easily penetrated as false.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, the employee must present a pri-ma facie case.... If the employee is able to present such a case, then the burden shifts to the employer to provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its adverse employment decision.... If the employer is able to do so, the burden shifts back to the employee, who, in order to defeat a motion for summary judgment, must show that the employer’s articulated reason was a pretext for intentional discrimination ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The prior decision remains controlling authority unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires modification of the decision or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior decision.”)). 14 . See Hamilton v. Carell, 243 F.3d 992, 1004 (6th Cir.2001) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.