Lorance v. At&t Technologies, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
259 federal appellate · 57 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 623 later decisions (24 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Landgraf v. USI Film Products (1994), 133 S. Ct. 2517 - University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar (2013)
259 federal appellate · 57 district · 24 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLorance v. at Technologies, Inc. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 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 (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Pullman-Standard v. Swint
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 623 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“With a facially neutral system the discriminatory act occurs only at the time of adoption, for each application is nondiscriminatory (seniority accrues for men and women on an identical basis). But a facially discriminatory system (e.g., one that assigns men twice the seniority that women receive for the same amount of time served) by definition discriminates each time it is applied.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[n]otwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority . . . system, . . . provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. . . .”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“facially nondiscriminatory and neutrally applied,”
7 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.