480 F. Supp. 2d 125 - Hunter v. Rice’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 2022
11 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 29 U.S.C. § 206 (Equal Pay Act of 1963) · 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 · Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment · Monge v. California · Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n an ordinary discrimination case, in which the plaintiff is a member of a minority group, an "inference of discrimination” arises when the employer simply passes over the plaintiff for a promotion to a position for which he is qualified.... No such inference arises when, as in this case, the plaintiff is a white man. Invidious racial discrimination against whites is relatively uncommon in our society, and so there is nothing inherently suspicious in an employer's decision to promote a qualified minority applicant instead of a qualified white applicant. Thus, in order to establish a prima facie case under Title VII, this Court requires a white plaintiff to show additional "background circumstances [that] support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiff belongs to the male majority, his [gender discrimination] claim is one of reverse discrimination.” Hunter v. Rice, 480 F.Supp.2d 125, 135 (D.D.C.2007); see also Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843, 851 (D.C.Cir.2006). Under a reverse discrimination claim, he”
1 later decision 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.