Watkins v. United Steel Workers, Local No. 2369’s Empirical Analysis
516 F.2d 41 · 1975
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1991 · most notably International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States (1977), Gen. Elec. Corp. v. COM. PA. HUM. R. COM. (1976)
20 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Reitman v. Mulkey · Magna Oil Corp. v. Bateson · Posadas v. National City Bank
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We hold that, regardless of an earlier history of employment discrimination, when present hiring practices are nondiscriminatory and have been for over ten years, an employer’s use of a long-established seniority system for determining who will be laid-off, and who will be rehired, adopted without intent to discriminate, is not a violation of Title VII or § 1981, even though the use of the seniority system results in the discharge of more blacks than whites to the point of eliminating blacks from the work force, where the individual employees who suffer layoff under the system have not themselves been the subject of prior employment discrimination.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Notwithstanding 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 or merit system, . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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 . . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. 18 Fair empl.prac.cas. 626, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8696 Abram Bryant, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. California Brewers Association, Miller Brewing Company, Joseph Schlitz Brewing Company, Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated, Pabst Brewing Company, Theodore Hamm Company, General Brewing Company, Falstaff Brewing Corporation, Teamster Brewery and Soft Drink Workers Joint Board of California of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union 856 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America in Itself and as Successor to Former Brewers Union Local 893 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Salesdrivers and Dairy Employees Union Local 166 in Itself and as Successor to Former Brewers Union Local 893 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Bottlers Union Local 896 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Beer Drivers and Salesmen's Union Local 888 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Drivers Union Local 203 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Salesdrivers, Helpers, and Dairy Employees Union Local 683 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America · Bryant v. California Brewers Ass'n
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.