Ralph M. Hackley v. Richard L. Roudebush, Administrator of Veterans Affairs’s Empirical Analysis
520 F.2d 108 · 1975
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 65 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably United States v. Raddatz (1980), Chandler v. Roudebush (1976)
103 federal appellate · 65 district · 4 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 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Fay v. Noia · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . . (T)here can exist no justification for anything but a vigorous effort to accord Federal employees the same rights and impartial treatment which the law seeks to afford employees in the private sector.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress was aware of the importance of class actions in Title VII litigation, see, e.g., Legislative History * at 1589-1590 (statements of Senator Javits), 1773 (statements of Senator Williams), and Senator Williams, in his section-by-section analysis of the final version of the 1972 Amendments, observed: In establishing the enforcement provisions under this subsection [706(f)(1) ] and subsection 706(f) generally, it is not intended that any of the provisions contained therein shall affect the present use of class action lawsuits under Title VII in conjunction with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The courts have been particularly cognizant of the fact that claims under Title VII involve the vindication of a major public interest, and that any action under the Act involves considerations beyond those raised by the individual claimant. As a consequence, the leading cases in this area to date have recognized that many Title VII claims are necessarily class action complaints and that, accordingly, it is not necessary that each individual entitled to relief be named in the original charge or in the claim for relief. A provision limiting class actions was contained in the House bill and specifically rejected by the Conference Committee. Legislative History at 1847 (emphasis added). There is a strong federal policy of encouraging class action litigation in situations of pervasive discrimination, cf. e. g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 , 401”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a)ll personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment * * * in executive agencies (of the United States) * * * shall be made free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”
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.