Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commercial Office Products Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
399 federal appellate · 172 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,013 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2022 · most notably Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp. (2006), Woodford v. Ngo (2006)
399 federal appellate · 172 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 10 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 v. Commercial Office Products Co. (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 705 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 (§ 709 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · United States v. American Trucking Associations · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States · Mohasco Corp. v. Silver · Love v. Pullman Co.
Cited together with Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 1,013 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is axiomatic that the EEOC's interpretation of Title VII, for which it has primary enforcement responsibility, need not be the best one by grammatical or any other standards. Rather, the EEOC's interpretation of ambiguous language need only be reasonable to be entitled to deference.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] Title VII plaintiff generally must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he verification provision is meant to provide some degree of insurance against catchpenny claims of disgruntled, but not necessarily aggrieved, employees. In requiring the oath or affirmation, however, Congress presumably did not mean to affect the nature of Title VII as “a remedial scheme in which laypersons, rather than lawyers, are expected to initiate the process.””
9 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.