Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Steamship Clerks Union, Local 1066’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 594 · 1995
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 43 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Blackie v. Maine (1996), Reich v. John Alden Life Insurance (1997)
45 federal appellate · 43 district · 5 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) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 709 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Morrissey v. Brewer · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks · International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Landgraf v. USI Film Products
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“separately, drawing inferences against each movant in turn.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is incumbent upon the plaintiff to demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination. In the disparate impact milieu, the prima facie case consists of three elements: identification, impact, and causation. First, the plaintiff must identify the challenged employment practice or policy, and pinpoint the defendant’s use of it. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate a disparate impact on a group characteristic, such as race, that falls within the protective ambit of Title VII. Third, the plaintiff must demonstrate a causal relationship between the identified practice and the disparate impact. When the plaintiff rests, declaring herself satisfied that she has established a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination, the ball bounces into the defendant’s court. At that point, the defendant has several options. First, it may attack the plaintiffs proof head-on, debunking its sufficiency or attempting to rebut it by adducing countervailing evidence addressed to one or more of the three constituent strands from which the prima facie case is woven, [ ] asserting, say, that no identifiable policy exists, or that the policy’s implementation produces no disparate impact, or that the plaintiffs empirical claims-such as the claim of causation-are insupportable. Alternatively, the defendant may confess and avoid, acknowledging the legal sufficiency of the prima facie case but endeavoring to show either that the challenged practice is job-related and consistent with business nec”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Wjhere, in a nonjury case, ‘the basic dispute between the parties concerns the factual inferences ... that one might draw from the more basic facts to which the parties have drawn the court’s attention,’ where ‘[tjhere are no significant disagreements about those basic facts,’ and where neither party has ‘sought to introduce additional factual evidence or asked to present witnesses’.... the standard for appellate oversight shifts from de novo review to clear-error review.”
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.