Metoyer v. Chassman’s Empirical Analysis
504 F.3d 919 · 2007
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 17 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Surrell v. California Water Service Co. (2008), Dawson v. Entek International (2011)
15 federal appellate · 17 district ·
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 29 U.S.C. § 504 · 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (§ 107 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981A · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Duncan v. Walker · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a Title VII discrimination case, even an employer who can successfully prove a mixed-motive defense, i.e., he would have made the same decision regarding a particular person without taking race or gender into account, does not escape liability.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“an '[a]nalysis of an employment discrimination claim under § 1981 follows the same legal principles as those applicable in a Title VII disparate treatment case.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.