United Steelworkers of America v. North Star Steel Company Inc’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.3d 39 · 1993
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2014 · most notably Carpenters District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. (1994), Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary/Bartender Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc. (2001)
33 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (§ 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (§ 5 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · Caminetti v. United States · United States v. Nordic Village, Inc. · Bates v. State Bar
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss as a result of such closing or layoff for (A) back pay for each day of violation at a rate of compensation not less than the higher of - (i) the average regular rate received by such employee during the last 3 years of the employee’s employment; or (ii) the final regular rate received by such employee; and (B) benefits under an employee benefit plan described in section 1002(3) of this title, including the cost of medical expenses incurred during the employment loss which would have been covered under an employee benefit plan if the employment loss had not occurred. Such liability shall be calculated for the period of the violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, but in no event for more than one-half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On the one hand, the term “back pay” connotes a remedy that would require the payment of a sum such that the employees would be put in the same position they would have been had the violation never occurred. On the other hand, “each day of the violation” appears to require payment of “back pay” damages for each calendar day within the violation period, which would put the employees in a significantly better position than they would have enjoyed had the employer provided the full sixty-day notice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any wages paid by the employer to the employee for the period of the violations ... [and] any voluntary and unconditional payment by the employer to the employee that is not required by any legal obligation.”
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.