Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 507 F.3d 1149 - Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co.

Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co.’s Empirical Analysis

507 F.3d 1149 · 2007

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Bone v. G4s Youth Services, LLC (2012), Lake v. Yellow Transportation, Inc. (2010)

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

210200720102020decided

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 · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins · Hutson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. · Griffith v. City of Des Moines · Radabaugh v. Zip Feed Mills, 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Price Waterhouse defined the term `direct evidence’ negatively to exclude `stray remarks in the workplace,’ `statements by nondecisionmakers,’ or `statements by decisionmakers unrelated to the decisional process itself.’”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A prima facie case creates a rebuttable presumption of discrimination. Kohrt v. MidAmerican Energy Co., 364 F.3d 894 , 897 (8th Cir.2004). The burden then shifts to the defendant to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 . If the defendant provides such a reason, the presumption disappears, and the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the proffered reason was pretext for age discrimination. Haas v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 409 F.3d 1030 , 1035 (8th Cir.2005). At all times, the ultimate burden of persuasion is on the plaintiff. Lewis [ v. St. Cloud State Univ.], 467 F.3d [1133,] 1137 [ (8th Cir.2006) ].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Assuming Suzuki was a decisionmaker, Ramlet has not demonstrated a specific link between the comments and his termination. The comments were not related to the decisional process as the most recent occurred at least four months before Ramlet’s termination, and both were made to employees not involved in the decisional process.”
    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.